Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

QUEEN'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS)

Mr. Michael Neubert (The Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household): reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:
I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Housing Waiting Lists

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the number of people on the housing waiting list in (1) Carmarthen district and (2) Wales for 1979 and at the latest available date.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): Information on the number of people on housing waiting lists is not held centrally.

Mr. Williams: Why will the Government not provide us with that information? Are they covering up and deliberately withholding embarrassing information? Does

the Minister agree with the housing organisations SHAC and Shelter that the estimated number of homeless people in Wales has doubled since 1979, and that more than 6,000 families and single people are now homeless?
Is the Minister aware that 2,000 people are on the housing waiting list in the Carmarthen district? The Government's policies do not allow the district council to build houses even though it wants to do so. Why are the Government so heartless and irresponsible towards the homeless?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman does the Government an injustice with his first question. The figures are produced by different authorities in different ways and are not comparable. That has been so for a long time. Indeed, local authorities prefer to produce their own figures in their own way.
During the past two years 61 local authority houses and 398 private houses have been built in the Carmarthen district, compared with 35 and 187 respectively during the last two years of the Labour Government.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: What estimates does my hon. Friend have for additional rented accommodation that will come on to the housing market as a result of the new Housing Act?

Mr. Grist: We expect that a great deal of money will be made available through various means—for example, pension funds, insurance companies, housing associations and others—to expand the private and public rented sectors for socially rented housing.

Mr. Anderson: Is it not daft that no central figures are available so that the Welsh Office can assess the overall need? Will the Minister consider with some humility the figures for Swansea, where more than 4,000 people are on the waiting list—a three-year high—where there has been no new build because of Government policies and where there is a reducing housing stock because of council house sales? Is he aware that increasing numbers of people are falling behind with their mortgage payments and are having their houses repossessed? They look to the council


to provide them with houses, but it cannot do so. What advice does the Minister give the council in those circumstances?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that there is new build in his city. His council should find the means to use flexibly the powers that other councils use for new build. It is not true that there has been a fall in the housing stock because of the right to buy? The housing stock remains exactly where it was—it just happens to be owned by people who were previously its tenants. They have a stake in the hon. Gentleman's city that they never had before.

Nurses (Grading)

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the new grading structure for nurses.

Mr. Grist: I have received 11 letters from Members of Parliament, a trade union, individual nurses, and members of the public.

Mr. Griffiths: Does the Minister acknowledge that, despite the total increase in funding available for the new wage settlement, the Government have made several strategic errors? First, in the pay review, they did not make any allowance for midwives' extra training. Secondly, they influenced health authorities, at least those in Wales, to review their own review of the pay structure. That has resulted in some nurses in the Mid-Glamorgan health authority area receiving altered forms giving their new gradings, and their gradings being reduced because of the cash limit imposed by the Welsh Office? Will the Welsh Office confirm that such an exercise did take place and that Mid-Glamorgan had to reduce the gradings that were offered to many of its nurses?

Mr. Grist: First, all the demands that were made on the grading structure were met by the Government. There was no cut at all. Every penny was paid that was agreed by the grading structure. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman mentioned midwives. Of the midwifery sisters on G grade, 86·7 per cent. have a rise of £1,925 to £3,025, which is rather above that of charge sisters and those with whom they are compared. There has been a slight mistake in thinking that, under the agreements that were reached with the unions, midwives have actually been done down. They have not.

Sir Raymond Gower: What use has been made of the appeals procedure that was agreed by the various unions at the onset of this matter?

Mr. Grist: The appeals system has been started. Each health authority is organising it, according to the agreement that was originally reached. I urge all trade unions involved to abide by that, not least because a warning has been given by most health authorities that they will not consider appeals while people are striking and demonstrating. Quite reasonably, most hon. Members would agree.

Mr. Rogers: Does the Minister accept that severe problems are arising out of the regrading? However the grades were set out, and however fair they might appear, the allocations within grades are creating anomalies. Many people, particularly those on lower grades, have

received pennies in rises, not the pounds that the hon. Gentleman is talking about. Will the Government look at that matter? Will they remember that the appeals procedure is so long-winded that few appeals have been heard in Mid-Glamorgan?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman should appreciate—I hope that he will pass this on to others—that the appeals procedure should be carried out with good will. There is no intention of doing anybody down. Nobody is being paid pence. Nursing auxiliaries on A grade are getting a rise of between £435 and £445 a year. That is the very bottom level. Many nurses and staff have been somewhat misled about what to expect and about what they will receive in their pay packets any day now.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is it not a fact that the overwhelming majority of nurses are getting substantial rises, many well in excess of £1,000 a year? Would not almost every profession in the public service regard such rises as very generous?

Mr. Grist: The rises are not merely remarkable—rises of 45 per cent. in real terms, on average, since the Government came to power—but they compare quite astoundingly with the 20 per cent. real fall in value under the Labour Government.

Mr. Michael: The figures sound nice, but, as the Minister has given such inadequate answers to hon. Members, will he answer a nurse who has written to me? She asks:
Where is the 18 per cent. rise the nurses are supposed to have had? As one of the NHS nurses I can assure you I have had 4 per cent. along with the majority in Cardiff royal infirmary.
She goes on:
We feel that Maggie Thatcher or the south Glamorgan health authority"—
[Interruption.] She went on to state that she felt that the Prime Minister
or the south Glamorgan health authority has trampled on the nursing profession yet again.
We know who is trampling on the nurses. Will the Minister answer her?

Mr. Grist: I am happy to congratulate my neighbour on his new position, but I cannot congratulate him on his question. Even if his correspondent were to have received the 4·2 per cent. rise, she would have had a rise of about £500 a year. She would have been at the top of her grade. The lady who wrote to the hon. Gentleman should wait until she gets the next pay settlement. Perhaps she will be surprised.

Rural Housing

Mr. Livsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to provide housing for local people in rural Wales.

Mr. Grist: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced an increase to £1 million in the funds available to local authorities in rural areas with a high concentration of second homes to purchase homes for sale or rent to local people. Housing for Wales will devote a substantial proportion of its development programme to rural areas, as the Housing Corporation has already done in Wales.

Mr. Livsey: Will the Minister acknowledge that £1 million is wholly inadequate to tackle the problem, but merely acknowledges that there is a problem? It will provide only 50 houses at £20,000 each, and it is impossible to find a house at that price in rural Wales. It is impossible for local people either to buy or rent them. Does the Minister agree that there should be a crash programme of building of affordable housing for first-time buyers and for those in the rented sector? In the Brecknock area 1,000 people are on the housing list, and in Crickhowell alone there are 100. Urgent action is needed. Will the Minister join me in calling for a housing forum in rural Wales next summer, and will he come to it?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on one aspect that he might like to explore further, and that is that his local authority should be more flexible and adventurous in the use of its powers. I was disappointed the other day when his planning officer made it clear that the authority seemed to have underestimated the powers which the various Acts had given him. If the local authority used the money available, mixed it with private money and worked with Housing for Wales, it could provide many more houses for rent than it may appreciate.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: When representatives of Pembroke council come to see my hon. Friend, will he bear in mind proposals for a rural housing initiative, similar to that already introduced for the Valleys by our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales? Will he point out to rural authorities that in many cases their restrictive planning policies are stopping derelict buildings from being brought back into use because of the conditions that they impose on those who occupy such buildings?

Mr. Grist: I hope that that will not be the case, but I agree that we would be sympathetic to an approach from any local authority that wishes to be designated under this scheme.

Dr. Thomas: Will the Minister join me in condemning all forms of violent action allegedly on the issue of housing problems in Wales? Will he consider the need for a concerted housing policy which takes account of the needs both of those who wish to purchase property and those who wish to rent it? Does he realise that his Department, by failing to have an integrated policy, is contributing to the housing crisis? Will he look to England, where the work of the rural development organisations with the housing associations has produced a much more coherent policy than has the Welsh Office?

Mr. Grist: Housing for Wales understands—as the Housing Corporation before it did—the differences between Wales and England, in that 25 per cent. of the funding was invested in rural areas of Wales as opposed to England, so England has a long way to go to catch up with our record on that. The hon. Gentleman referred to the stupid but mainly criminal activities of certain individuals or groups. They do immense damage to the good name of Wales, they harm the cause which their perpetrators purport to support and they are wholly foreign to the peaceable welcoming attitude of most Welsh people. I am glad to have his support.

Mr. Raffan: In order to increase the supply of start-up homes for local people in Wales, will my hon. Friend discuss with housing associations the introduction of a

building and selling at cost policy, provided that land can be made available at a reasonable price? Is he aware that under such a policy the difference between the cost and market value of a property, if sold on to an outsider, can be retained by the housing association to generate yet more low-cost housing?

Mr. Grist: Entry into low-cost home ownership through such flexible methods is exactly what we seek to encourage, and Housing for Wales will be taking a similar line. We hope that local authorities will join in this programme.

Local Authority Associations

Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of local authority associations in Wales; and what topics were discussed.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): I met representatives of the Welsh Counties Committee and the Committee of Welsh District Councils at a meeting of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance on 24 October. The main topics discussed were the provision of Welsh rate support grant settlement for 1989–90, the 1988 report of the grant distribution sub-group, the Rate Support Grants Act 1988, provision for community charge preparation costs, and the consultation paper on capital expenditure and finance.

Mr. Murphy: Why will the Secretary of State not listen to district councils in Wales, which have told him that his capital allocations for the implementation of the poll tax fall well short, by many millions of pounds, of the amount required and which are, in any event, loans, the repayment of which will place a great burden on future community tax payers in Wales? Does the Secretary of State not realise that the money would be better spent on reducing housing waiting lists, improving school building and helping to improve road systems? When will he admit that the poll tax is an imposition on the people of Wales and is deeply resented by all who live there?

Mr. Walker: First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new appointment and wish him a long and happy life there. He mentioned the allowances for the poll tax. In fairness, if he speaks to the district councils, they will inform him that when they put forward their original proposals on revenue I not only listened to them but pointed out that I thought that they had not requested enough. They applied for more because they had made a mistake in their calculations, which I pointed out. No one could accuse me of not listening. I not only listened, but told them how they should change their applications. The capital assumptions will be reasonable. The total per head allocation in Wales compares favourably with what is being provided in England. I can understand differences of opinion on the poll tax, but the hon. Gentleman will find that many people in his constituency and elsewhere will be considerable beneficiaries from the change.

Mr. Morgan: What is the right question to produce the now standard Cabinet answer that Cardiff, like Edinburgh, is a flourishing city? In seeking to find out which question will produce that non-sequitur, I shall ask the Secretary of State whether he thinks that the


Chancellor's high interest rate policy will have a devastating effect on the efforts of local authorities in Wales to bring in industrial development.

Mr. Walker: The effect will be nowhere near as adverse as it would be if we returned to the level of inflation under the last Labour Government.

Roads (Expenditure)

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the total spending by central Government on roads in Wales since 1979; and how many miles of motorway and trunk roads have been laid since that year.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): Expenditure on the improvement and maintenance of trunk roads and motorways since 1979 exceeds £1 billion. In addition, over £290 million has been provided to Welsh local authorities as transport supplementary grant for improvement of their roads. Twenty-two miles of motorway and 112 miles of trunk road have been provided.

Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend expect that expenditure will remain at a high level during the coming year? Does he expect many new contracts to be let during that year?

Mr. Roberts: We expect expenditure on roads to remain at a high level. Twenty two miles of trunk road are under construction at an estimated cost of £290 million. We expect to let a contract for one scheme costing over £10 million before the end of the current financial year.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: Will the Minister give a guarantee that the M4 will be completed by 1992?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is aware that one section of the M4 to which we have yet to attend—the stretch between Baglan and Lonlas—will be attended to as soon as possible. We shall probably put the contract out in sections, starting next year.

Mr. Raffan: Does my hon. Friend agree that, for the Government's massive investment in the A55 to be cost effective, adequate access or link roads to the expressway must be constructed? Does he agree that such roads are top priority, and will he do his utmost to impress that point on Clwyd county council?

Mr. Roberts: I am well aware of the point that my hon. Friend is making and of his interest in the connecting roads in Clwyd. We are discussing road programmes with Clwyd county council and I shall ensure that his point is borne in mind.

Sheepmeat

Mr. Geraint Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to visit Brussels to help secure the future of the European sheepmeat regime.

Mr. Peter Walker: I am well aware of the importance of sheep production to the rural economy and, in particular, to the hill and upland areas of Wales. I intend to play an active part in assisting my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the important negotiations on the review of the sheepmeat regime.

Mr. Howells: Is it not regrettable that the Government will not allow our Secretary of State, who has full responsibility for agriculture in the Community, to go to Brussels? However, there is one ray of hope—I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware of this—in that the French sheep breeders have at last seen sense and are keen to introduce a sheepmeat regime, similar to ours, in France. As the Secretary of State is responsible for our present sheepmeat regime, will he now go to Brussels to talk to the French and others to safeguard the present scheme?

Mr. Walker: I should be perfectly happy to go to Brussels and, indeed, may well go to Brussels—there is no difficulty about my going there. As a tolerably old hand at negotiations in Brussels, I advise the hon. Gentleman that there are considerable advantages in having one negotiator rather than two. However, there are also advantages—my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods agrees with this—in my being present and if for certain talks and negotiations in Brussels he would like me to be there, I shall certainly be there.
The position of French sheepmeat producers has changed from time to time over the years, but that of the French Government has not changed. So far in negotiations there is not much sign that the French Government are changing their view. What is vital is that a scheme emerges that will ensure that, if anything, we get better access to the European market for our sheep production; that there is no discrimination against United Kingdom producers; that the income, especially of sheep producers in the hill areas, is maintained at a sensible level so that they remain viable, and that any transitional changes will not create difficulties during the transition.

Mr. Ron Davies: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the present sheepmeat regime will do nothing to meet the estimated £200 million that will be lost to Welsh farmers this year as a result of the current high interest rates? Given the Secretary of State's reported speech to the Carlton club, when he referred to the Chancellor as "incompetent" because of the impact of high interest rates on industry, and if the Secretary of State is to represent the true interests of the people of Wales, does the right hon. Gentleman think that he has any honourable course of action other than resignation?

Mr. Walker: While I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will ever gain admission to the Carlton club, had he done so, and listened to my speech, he would have found that the version of my speech that appeared in The Observer was totally an invention of The Observer.

Mr. Barry Jones: May I, too, congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the wide publicity that yesterday's press gave to his criticisms of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? We agree with him in that. In relation to sheepmeat, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Welsh farming fraternity want to see him in Brussels more often, standing his corner, fighting hard and being on guard against opportunistic continental farmers?
May I ask him, as our Agriculture Minister, what advice he is giving to the people of Wales on eggs and salmonella? Does he agree that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), should be relieved of her office following her


careless remarks at the weekend? Is the Department of Health not worried and is the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food not rather complacent?

Mr. Walker: First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his election to the shadow Cabinet. I am sure that we are all relieved that at long last the Labour party has a Welsh spokesman in the shadow Cabinet.
I should like to thank him also for his kind and generous remarks, which have given me great confidence in my negotiating skills when I go to Brussels. I am glad that the view of the Welsh farmers is that I would negotiate well on their behalf, and I am also glad that that view is so enthusiatically supported by the hon. Gentleman.
It is vital to get a good sheepmeat regime for the future, in the same way as we have had a good regime in the recent past. I have no reason to believe that we will not be successful in that endeavour.

Professional, Industrial and Commercial Programme

Mr. Gwilym Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many persons have benefited from the professional, industrial and commercial programme in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I refer to the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) in March this year, when I said that some 6,800 individuals were receiving updating or retraining and that the past two years had seen a 40 per cent. increase in the number of PICKUP courses and a 100 per cent. increase in the number of students benefiting from those courses.
The programme continues to have considerable impact, and the numbers of persons benefiting are steadily increasing. A survey of short vocational courses in the public sector further and higher education establishments in England and Wales is being carried out and the results will be available in 1989.

Mr. Jones: I know from my hon. Friend's answer that he fully appreciates the importance of the PICKUP programme. Will he take this opportunity to say what more will be done in the future to promote it?

Mr. Roberts: We have spent about £380,000 promoting the PICKUP developments in 1987–88 and we expect to spend another £261,000 in 1988–89. We are certainly giving PICKUP courses a high priority in Wales. We have two full-time PICKUP development agents and their support staff are funded by the Welsh Office. Funds have been provided for every local authority higher education institution and university college to appoint a PICKUP co-ordinator—[Interruption.] I am sure that the entire House and Wales will have noted the hilarity with which the Opposition regard training and retraining in Wales.

Council House Rents

Dr. Marek: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to advise local councils to increase the rents of council tenants in Wales.

Mr. Grist: It is for local authorities to determine actual rent increases according to their own circumstances.

Dr. Marek: Does the Minister recognise that Wrexham Maelor borough council is a good, value-for-money oriented, efficient housing authority, with a good standard

of repairs, low rents and a housing revenue account which stands on its own and is not subsidised by the general rates fund? That being so, why is the Minister threatening to make that local authority increase its council rents by, in effect, threatening to withhold housing benefits and thus risking the poor subsidising the poorer?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman must explain that to me, because, as I said in my answer, it is up to local authorities to set their own rent levels. That is so both under the present regime and under the regime that we propose to introduce.

Environmental Problems

Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make a statement on his priorities in dealing with environmental problems in Wales.

Mr. Peter Walker: Our aim is to prevent undue risks to human life and health, to protect the natural environment and to improve public amenity, particularly in those areas with the worst environments.

Mrs. Clwyd: Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the worst industrial polluters remaining in Britain is in the Cyrion valley? Is he aware of the considerable anxiety felt by the local council and by local people because the company intends to introduce the mild heat treatment process, which it claims will improve the environment? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that process, which operates in Hamilton in Scotland only, has caused considerable environmental difficulties? Will he also confirm that planning permission is needed before the process is introduced in the Cynon valley?

Mr. Walker: I am fully aware of local feeling about pollution from the phurnacite plant. I gather that the worst of the remaining Disticoke batteries were closed down last week and will remain so permanently. I understand that that will bring about some immediate improvement.
The company's applications regarding its future methods will, of course, be a matter that the inspectorate must consider fully. If the method has been used elsewhere and has failed, obviously that will be within the knowledge of the inspectorate, which could then impose its views as to whether the proposed method is desirable.
The hon. Lady is aware that I have previously discussed this matter with her. There always has been a balance of view in the locality as to the importance of the jobs involved as opposed to the environmental situation created by the phurnacite plant. I have to seek the advice of the inspectorate on these matters and, obviously, to listen to the opinions of the local authority. I shall do that.

Mr. John: Does the right hon. Gentleman share my disappointment that the Queen's Speech contained no promise of legislation to impose tough controls on industrial polluters? Does he accept that, on the jobs front, our experience is that if firms want to produce, they will? If they do not, no amount of anxiety among local people about pollution will stop them. In the past nine years, no firm has ever given a damn about the well-being of the locality when trying to preserve jobs.

Mr. Walker: To take the example that we have just been discussing, shortly after I became Secretary of State I


discussed with the Coal Board what it intended to do about improving the environment. It had committed itself to a heavy capital investment programme to do that. I took that attitude to get both the improved environment and the jobs. A balance must always be struck, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the environmental consequences can have not only an adverse effect on the immediate locality but a long-term adverse effect on inward investment in the locality.

Mr. Barry Jones: Has the Department not failed to meet the challenge of the 30 per cent. Club, the importation of poisonous waste and the filthy condition of many of our beaches? Why should my frightened constituents see poisonous soil from Rotterdam dumped at the bottom of their gardens, and why should the citizens of Torfaen grow ever more apprehensive about the Rechem smokestack? Does the right hon. Gentleman plan to stop the import of poisonous waste into Wales? I remind him that the Karin B wanted to dock at Neath. We want an end to these matters.

Mr. Walker: As the hon. Gentleman will know from his ministerial experience, the disposal of waste is under strict independent and impartial control, and no waste that fails those controls can come into this country, be used in this country or have any application in this country.
On the state of the beaches and the water, I urge the hon. Gentleman to examine the capital investment programmes to improve the rivers, beaches and water systems of Wales that have taken place in the lifetime of this Government. We should compare that with the total stagnation in investment under the Labour Government.

Housing

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of Wales what action he has taken to ascertain the views of Welsh local authorities on the future of housing in Wales.

Mr. Grist: Local authorities have been extensively consulted about the Government's policy proposals, and I have regular discussions with local authorities in the forum of the Welsh Housing Consultative Committee.

Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that, according to the new voting rules approved by the Government in the Housing Act 1988, the Labour party won the general elections of 1979, 1983 and 1987? That is especially true in Torbay, where non-voters are counted as having voted in favour of Government policy. The non-voters are the lazy, the apathetic, the sick and the dead. In Torbay, 2,200 voters were outvoted by 700. Is that not a breach of democracy as serious as the selective franchise, the 30-year Parliaments and the rotten boroughs of the previous century? The same thing is happening in Wales. Is the Minister on the side of democracy, or on the side of vote-rigging?

Mr. Grist: I think that I speak not only for this side of the House when I say that other hon. Members may believe that the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party know more about rotten boroughs than we have forgotten about them.

Wales Railway Centre

Mr. Adley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to visit the Wales railway centre in Cardiff; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Walker: I wish to visit the centre. I am pleased that it has received financial support from various public bodies and that this has enabled good progress to be made with the project.

Mr. Adley: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, and welcoming the efforts of Cardiff Bay development corporation and the local authorities in renovating south Cardiff, may I ask my right hon. Friend to take note of the fact that if the Wales railway centre is to achieve its objective it must maintain a rail link, not only with Cardiff city centre, but with the new heritage park in the Rhondda, which he has supported substantially, and with the Big Pit at Blaenavon? Will he ensure that that vital point is not lost as discussions proceed?

Mr. Walker: Given my hon. Friend's expertise on railways both here and overseas, I shall of course take careful note of his points.

Council House Rents

Mr. Rowlands: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his Department's latest estimate is of the amount of council house rent arrears since April; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Grist: The only figures held centrally on local authority rent arrears refer to the end of the financial year. Local authorities' projections for the end of 1988–89 are incomplete but currently stand at £5·3 million.

Mr. Rowlands: Is the Minister aware that there has been a dramatic increase in arrears since April—50 per cent. in some of the communities that I represent—mainly as a result of cuts in housing benefit? Does he agree that those cuts in benefit are hitting some of the poorer tenants? What additional new action do the Government propose to alleviate the disadvantages of those people and the growing arrears of local authorities?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that the estimated figures show a 2·1 per cent. shortfall of arrears compared with the total rent bill. It was 1·9 per cent. in the last financial year, 1987–88, 2 per cent. in 1986–87 and 2·6 per cent. in 1985–86. It is currently 2·1 per cent. There has been little, if any, change in arrears as a percentage of the total rent bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE ARTS

Ethnic Minority Arts

Mr. Bernie Grant: To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will publish a table showing detailed expenditure by the Arts Council on ethnic minority arts by the Arts Council in (a) 1985–86, (b) 1986–87, (c) 1987–88, by (i) department, (ii) client and (iii) type of funding, whether revenue, annual or project.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): The Arts Council report on ethnic minority arts, now due in the new


year, will contain details on these matters. In the meantime, I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 28 April to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz).

Mr. Grant: Is it true that a paltry sum of less than 2 per cent. of Arts Council grants goes to black-led arts companies'? Is that not a disgraceful undervaluing of those companies'? Does the Minister agree that the abolition of the GLC and the Government-inspired cuts in local authority funding mean that black arts companies are finding increasing difficulty in getting funding, and what does he intend to do about that?

Mr. Luce: I think it is true that the ethnic minority arts, principally the Caribbean and Asian arts, have an important contribution to make to the diversity of arts in this country. The Arts Council has a clear objective, which is to set aside 4 per cent. of its resources to help sustain that development. At the moment it is undertaking a review of its support for ethnic minority arts and is planning to hold a seminar in the new year, which I plan to attend.

Mr. Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the abolition of the GLC has had a remarkably beneficial effect on the funding of arts in London? Secondly, does he agree that, although it is true that the Caribbean arts have much to offer to the rich diversity of arts in our national life, nevertheless the question of ethnic funding is not the one to he considered? What matters is whether it is a worthy subject to be funded.

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right on the latter point. Many Asian and Caribbean minority arts activities are worthy of being funded and the Arts Council is moving in that direction. The decision must be taken on the grounds of artistic merit and on those grounds alone. My hon. Friend mentioned the abolition of the GLC. I recall that three years ago there were prognostications of gloom and despondency by the Opposition about what would happen on the abolition of the metropolitan authorities. The opposite has been the case and the arts have been sustained in all those areas.

Mappa Mundi

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Minister for the Arts if he has any plans to take action to ensure that the Mappa Mundi is retained by Hereford cathedral for public display in Hereford; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Luce: I am keeping in close touch with developments. In particular, I note that Hereford city council has taken a positive approach to the problem of the potential sale of the Mappa Mundi. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), in his capacity as chairman of the all-party heritage committee, has had an informal meeting with the dean of Hereford, Lord Charteris, chairman of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, Lord Gowrie, chairman of Sotheby's, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), who I know is playing a constructive role in all this. I now understand that the dean and chapter of Hereford cathedral have met today to consider the situation. In the light of all this, I hope that it will be possible to find a solution acceptable to all the parties.

Mr. Hughes: As a Herefordian, may I ask the Minister whether he will confirm that less than an hour ago the dean and chapter decided that until the matter is resolved they have no plans to revoke the decision to sell? In that event, what is needed from the Minister is a clear announcement that the Government support the retention of the Mappa Mundi in Hereford. They must say that they will work with the National Heritage Memorial Fund and the British Library to ensure that the moneys are forthcoming and that no stone will be left unturned to ensure that the map returns to where it was created and where it belongs. The Government must ensure that the heritage of our cathedrals is not sold off through auction rooms to the highest bidders no matter where they might be in the world.

Mr. Luce: I have yet to learn precisely what was discussed today by the dean and chapter. I have no shadow of doubt about the importance of this object to our heritage and the importance that the people of Hereford, let alone the cathedral authorities, attach to it. I recognise that fully. The chairman of the National Heritage Memorial Fund has already said that he would be prepared, because he has taxpayers' money at his disposal, to consider playing a role on behalf of the taxpayer, but I draw the attention of the House to the fact that all past experience and practice in this sector have shown that where an object deserves retention in this country the most sensible basis for a solution is an effective partnership between the public and the private sectors, and one that is acceptable to all parties. I will do whatever I can to help reach an effective solution along those lines.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: The close interest that my right hon. Friend is taking in this matter will be well received in Hereford, and on a far broader basis than that, because this is an important matter. I am not aware of the outcome of today's meeting of the Hereford chapter, but if the dean and chapter seek a meeting with my right hon. Friend. will he respond favourably to requests from me to arrange such a meeting?

Mr. Luce: I acknowledge the role that my hon. Friend is playing in all this. If the dean and chapter ask for a meeting I shall he happy to meet them and to hear their viewpoint.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is it not time to define certain treasures which must not be sold abroad, whatever the circumstances, by people who simply want to raise money? Italy and other countries with considerable treasures do better than we do in this respect by preventing the export of certain treasures. Should we not define certain categories to fit into that?

Mr. Luce: Each European country has a different procedure to deal with this matter. Italy places an almost total ban on the export of nearly all objects of heritage importance. I am not sure that I believe that to be the right way to proceed. We have to preserve the ability of people to sell their own objects, to preserve an element of market forces in all this, and to allow trade across national boundaries. History shows that in the past 200 years the number of objects that we have imported is a factor to be taken into account. Against that, it is important that we have procedures which allow us to preserve heritage items of the greatest importance. For that reason, it is important


that we have in existence the National Heritage Memorial Fund, which has substantial amounts of taxpayers' money at its disposal to help in this direction.

Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it was clear, not only from the meeting that we held last week, to which he referred, but from conversations that I had yesterday and today with Lord Charteris and the chapter clerk, that everyone concerned is desperately anxious to see a solution which leaves the map in Hereford cathedral, but also does something to help the cathedral's real problems? Is not Lord Charteris in an extremely difficult position while the map remains on offer? Would it not be exceptionally helpful if, accepting the real desire to help, the dean and chapter would withdraw the map from public auction, at least for the time being?

Mr. Luce: I am grateful for the constructive role that my hon. Friend is playing in this, with all his knowledge of these issues. I must leave it to the judgment of Lord Charteris, as chairman of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. What is the point of establishing such bodies unless I take their advice? If I were to ignore their advice, that would be wrong. I have no shadow of doubt that it is important to preserve the Nappa Mundi in this country —it is an important object of art and it is also important to the people of Hereford—and I shall play a prominent role in helping to achieve just that.

Mr. Fisher: The House will have heard the Minister's fine words, but will he respond to the very moderate and constructive remarks made by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack)? If he fails to do that, and in the light of his reply to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the House will have no alternative but to realise that the Government are introducing market forces even into this area of policy. The House will consider that a disgrace.

Mr. Luce: I cannot see how the hon. Gentleman can make that deduction from my remarks about the Mappa Mundi and its importance. I have no difficulty saying that I hope that a solution can be found that will lead to the map's withdrawal from auction on the market. It is important to preserve the map in this country and all parties concerned must work to that end. I have already pledged to do my best in that direction.

Secondments

Mr. Chapman: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will give the latest number of secondments between the Civil Service and industry; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): A significant number of serving civil servants now have experience in the private sector as a result of secondments. There were nearly 500 secondments of three months or more between the Civil Service and industry in 1987. I hope that the recent White Paper on releasing enterprise will continue this process.

Mr. Chapman: I very much welcome the increased number of secondments between the Civil Service and industry. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the numbers are still too few? Given the understandable

practical difficulties that can exist, will he take further initiatives to encourage part-time secondments between industry and the Civil Service, and encourage civil servants to take non-executive directorships in businesses, to the mutual benefit both of business and of the Civil Service?

Mr. Luce: I agree with my hon. Friend, who has taken a close interest in these matters for some time. The answer to the problem does not lie in one solution; for example, simply in two-year secondments between the private sector and business, which is already doing well. The answer lies in a number of solutions, including short-term loans, Whitehall and industry schemes and part-time executives, of which there are 45 at the moment. The answer lies in a package of means whereby there can be a greater interchange between the private sector and the Civil Service.

Civil Service Unions

Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the Civil Service unions; and what matters he discussed.

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met Civil Service unions; and what subjects were discussed.

Mr. Allen: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the Civil Service unions; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Luce: I have meetings from time to time with representatives of Civil Service trade unions both centrally and during visits to Civil Service establishments. A wide variety of matters are raised.

Mr. Barnes: Did the Minister discuss the basic principles of trade unionism with the Civil Service trade unions which are to negotiate wages and conditions on behalf of their members under agreed and established procedures? Why are those rights denied to workers in GCHQ? The Government present themselves as dynamic and thrusting, but again they are reactionary in going back to legislation which this House got rid of some time before 1824, which had banned combination of workers.

Mr. Luce: Over the last four years the position on GCHQ has been made absolutely clear. It is only with security and intelligence organisations that the rules apply with regard to trade unions. GCHQ depends on continuity of service 24 hours a day flowing at all times in the national interest and in the interests of our national security. From 1979 to 1981, 10,000 working days were lost as a result of action. That was not acceptable in the interests of our national security. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and his team have been taking pains over four years to deal with the real individual problems that have arisen as a result of the decision.

Mr. Winnick: Has the Minister heard from the Civil Service unions whether they intend to tell Mr. Gorbachev when he visits Britain that they are very much in favour of the basic rights being introduced in the Soviet Union at long last, while the Civil Service unions are trying to defend our existing rights, including the rights of people at GCHQ to belong to a trade union?

Mr. Luce: If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to draw an exact parallel between the conditions of trade unions in Britain and in the Eastern bloc, he had better go and live in the Eastern bloc and find out for himself.

Mr. Allen: Will the Minister comment on the scandal of the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce computer programme—the private programme introduced for intervention board pricing? Will he make a statement in the very near future on how people who have been unduly affected by that computer catastrophe will be assisted?

Mr. Luce: As I understand the scheme to which the hon. Gentleman refers, it is principally a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whom such questions should be directed.

Mr. Holt: Will my right hon. Friend say whether he has discussed the relocation of Civil Service departments in the north of England, particularly in the light of the report produced in June last year by two middle-ranking officials stating that in their opinion senior civil servants would not wish to live in the north of England?

Mr. Luce: Earlier this year my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General set out the framework of the Government's broad policy towards the relocation of civil servants in other parts of the country. As my hon. Friend is aware, four out of five civil servants work outside London, and there is now considerable encouragement to Departments, most of which are taking seriously the possibility—on the grounds of recruitment and retention and on other grounds—of moving more civil servants to other areas.

Mr. Soames: When my right hon. Friend next meets the Civil Service unions, will he pass on to them my admiration for the immense tact, discretion and thoroughness with which the DHSS office in Crawley deals with various matters? Will he tell them that it would be greatly in their interests to concentrate on trying to get their other members to behave in the way that their members in Crawley behave?

Mr. Luce: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said and for the tribute that he paid to offices in his constituency and the high standards of conduct of the civil servants there.

Dr. Marek: The Minister cannot get away from the great gulf that exists in the minds of the public in relation to GCHQ when they perceive their Prime Minister preaching and supporting free trade unions in Poland but abolishing free trade unions in Britain. If the free trade unions in Britain went to the Minister and said that they wished to negotiate a no-strike deal, with no holds barred, so that, to use the Minister's words, information could continue to flow and there would be no interruption in service, in return for being able to organise GCHQ freely, would he talk to them?

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman is very familiar with the reasons for that. It is quite clear that the rule on trade unions applies only to security and intelligence institutions. GCHQ did have disruption, losing 10,000 working days between 1979 and 1981. The continuous free flow of information from that institution is essential in our national interest. It was on those grounds alone that the decision was taken. The decision applies only to security and intelligence institutions.

Agency System

Mr. French: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the progress towards establishing agencies within the Civil Service.

Mr. Luce: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall answer this question and question 56 together.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman cannot do that. We have already passed question 56.

Mr. Luce: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I will answer question 58 alone.
Two agencies have been set up, about 30 more have been announced and more are in the pipeline, 1 shall be making a progress report to the House before too long.

Mr. French: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the agency system will greatly improve the managerial abilities of civil servants, but only if adequate provision is made for management training? Will he tell the House what provisions he has in mind?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the main purposes of the establishment of the agencies is to devolve decision-making down the line of management in the Civil Service, and to give managers in the Civil Service greater authority and enable them to take more decisions themselves. It is essential that we should have proper training policies to enable them to become even better managers. To that end I have earmarked an additional £1 million, which will be used as a form of challenge funding with Departments to stimulate better training.

Mr. Madden: Will the Minister take action to ensure that the agencies do not place contracts with the Economic League—the jobs blacklisting organisation? Will he ensure that they do not place security contracts with the Securicor group or Group 4 Total Security Limited, which have had Government contracts for many years and subscribe to the Economic League?

Mr. Luce: The important point is that members of the agencies will be members of the Civil Service, under the direct control and overall responsibility of the Secretary of State, with delegated responsibility to the chief executive. Broadly speaking, the standards maintained by the Civil Service and the Departments will be maintained by the agencies.

Salmonella and Eggs

Sir Hal Miller: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on salmonella and eggs.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): My Department issued guidance on 26 August and 21 November concerning salmonella and eggs. I am advised by the Government's chief medical officer that up to the end of October there had been 46 reported outbreaks of salmonella food poisoning in England and Wales, involving about 1,000 cases in which the most likely source of the infection was uncooked or partially cooked eggs. Recent studies show that some sporadic cases of salmonellosis have been caused by eggs. It is likely that these figures underestimate the total number of people affected.
The chief medical officer is today repeating his advice to the public not to eat raw eggs or uncooked foods made from them. He has advised caterers to use pasteurised egg instead of uncooked egg.
Some of the 46 outbreaks were assoicated with the consumption of lightly cooked eggs or foods containing them. Although the risk of harm to any healthy individual from consuming a single egg is small, it is advisable for vulnerable people, such as the elderly, the sick, babies and pregnant women, to consume only eggs that have been cooked until the white and yolk are solid. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is in his place alongside me, is this afternoon publishing details of a voluntary code agreed with the poultry breeding industry to reduce the risk of salmonella infection in poultry breeding flocks.
To put the problem in perspective—30 million eggs are eaten every day—the risk of an individual becoming ill is very small. Nevertheless, there are grounds for concern, and my Department, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the poultry industry are working closely together to tackle them.

Sir Hal Miller: Will my right hon. and learned Friend reiterate that the 46 outbreaks relate to a consumption this year of 9 billion eggs? Is he aware of the consternation and anger that have been caused by the rather rash statement of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health? Does he realise that there are signs in Birmingham market advertising Dutch eggs that are salmonella-free? The woman at the pub in the Cotswolds at which I stopped for breakfast over-cooked the eggs because of the salmonella scare. Is it not time that something was done to put an end to this uncertainty?

Mr. Clarke: We are all agreed that we must keep this matter in proportion. There is no doubt that there is genuine concern in this country and abroad about the increased incidence of salmonella poisoning from eggs. It is right that particularly vulnerable people such as the frail, the sick, the elderly and young children should be protected from eating raw eggs. I agree with my hon. Friend about the vast consumption of eggs in this country, but the risk of infection to any individual is small, and the risk to a healthy adult is small indeed. This is an international problem, so anyone advertising overseas eggs as being safer than our own is plainly wrong.
I noticed that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health drew attention to this problem this weekend. The House should reflect on the fact that my hon. Friend was talking about a serious matter on which my Department had already issued public health advice twice this autumn. My hon. Friend's words have sought to draw further attention to the problem and, I trust, to warn people who are vulnerable to infection if they eat raw or uncooked eggs. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) that I shall carry on eating eggs, as I am sure he will. The chief medical officer tells me that he had egg sandwiches for lunch. Every healthy individual need not be too worried about an unreasonable scare.

Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Secretary of State recall that when his Department last issued guidance on eggs and salmonella, on 21 November, it stated:
the risk of any individual egg being infected is likely to be very small"?
How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman square that with the claim at the weekend by the Under-Secretary of State that most of the egg production in this country is now infected? Which of those two statements reflects the Department's view? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman content to preside over a Department that issues two totally and utterly contradictory views in the space of two weeks?
Is not the lesson of today that the Government will let the hon. Lady insult pensioners, caricature northerners and threaten child benefit, but that stubbing the toes of the National Farmers Union is going too far? Surely it must now be clear to the Secretary of State that the hon. Lady's embarrassment quotient exceeds her entertainment value? Is it not about time he removed such a major obstacle to our taking his Department seriously?

Mr. Clarke: The Department's position has been consistent throughout. There is a growth risk of salmonella. It is obviously right that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my Department and the industry should tackle it together. The risk of any individual being infected is quite small, but it is right that we should draw the public's attention to the need to be careful in the way that they handle and cook food. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health is an extremely valuable member of the team in this Department and the Government. It may be that many hon. Members are a little envious of her natural gift for obtaining publicity. This is not the first occasion on which she has obtained great publicity on a serious matter and drawn the public's attention to something that might otherwise have passed their notice.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that unsubstantiable remarks by anyone must be denied by Secretaries of State? Will he make it clear to the House that there is no scientific evidence that there is any salmonella in an uncracked egg, one that is still in the shell? Therefore, statements made over the weekend which have a major effect on a large industry in agriculture are to be condemned.

Mr. Clarke: I do not hold myself out as having any scientific expertise. I obviously rely heavily, and with total confidence, on the advice that I receive from the chief medical officer to the Government and his staff. My understanding is not the same as my hon. Friend's. I do


not think that it is true that an uncracked egg can be guaranteed to be salmonella-proof. The advice that we are giving is that the public should be careful about how they handle uncracked eggs, that they should cook them thoroughly and use them sensibly. The remains relevant advice until the industry's efforts have reduced the present level of infection.

Mr. Richard Livsey: Will the Minister acknowledge that the statement of his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has created a tremendous loss of confidence in the egg industry? How will he give more confidence now that that statement has been made? There is no question but that there needs to be an investigation and thorough inquiry into what has gone on. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, if the facts are established and there is a problem, he should discuss with his hon. Friends in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the possibility of a thorough eradication programme, should that prove necessary?

Mr. Clarke: My Department put out information in August advising the public not to eat raw eggs. That advice was followed up in November with advice not to eat raw or lightly cooked eggs, together with a recommendation in caterers to use pasteurised eggs for any food that required raw or lightly cooked eggs. All we are doing is reinforcing that message.
As I have said today, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is putting out a code that has been drawn up with the industry and will be followed by the industry to reduce salmonella infection to acceptable, minimal proportions. At the moment there is a source of anxiety which is being tackled by all concerned. Meanwhile, the public will simply have to be sensible and carry on eating their eggs in a way that ensures that the risk to health is the absolute minimum.

Mr. Robert Key: I would hazard the guess that millions of people will be infinitely depressed at the prospect of hard-boiled eggs and no fresh mayonnaise. What practical steps are he and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food taking to investigate the cause of salmonella in poultry and to eliminate it?

Mr. Clarke: I agree that I would miss my mayonnaise, but, personally, I shall probably not desist from eating it. I imagine that that is true of most people in this Chamber who regard themselves as healthy adults and therefore the risk of infection to be acceptable. However, we have a duty to warn the public that salmonella infection is rising and appears to be poultry-based. The Ministry of Agriculture, my Department and the public health laboratory service will all be seeking to find more information about the full extent of the infection and the steps that can be taken to reduce it. We are sure that steps can be taken to get British poultry and eggs back to the high quality that we are accustomed to receiving.

Mr. James Lamond: Does the Minister unequivocally and strongly support the statement made by the Under-Secretary of State?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend was quite right to answer a question put to her on another occasion, stressing the

concern that we feel about infection in eggs and drawing attention to the advice that the Department had already been giving over the previous few months.

Sir Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that even the fact that he has come here today and said that there is a very small risk is doing damage? The risk is minuscule, but we have witnessed today, in this House, some embarrassment and laughter, and, outside this House, a fall in consumption of 1 per cent. or more, which may put egg producers out of business. My right hon. and learned Friend must address that matter.

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend that, despite the undertone of hilarity in the House, there is a serious problem. We must steer the proper course between, on the one hand, the ridiculous scares that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) described after his experiences, and, on the other hand, undue complacency which might leave some of the very elderly and the very young and the sick and frail at risk. All the public have to do is cook their eggs carefully—fry them or boil them properly—and for any frail person to make sure that they are hard boiled. I am sure that the industry and ourselves can tackle the risk together.

Mr. Roy Beggs: The half-baked, half-boiled irrational statement by the Under-Secretary of State has caused tremendous concern in Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that no outbreak of salmonella has been identified in connection with any eggs or poultry products produced in Northern Ireland? Does he also accept that the sweeping allegations, which, from what we hear today, are largely unfounded, threaten egg production in Northern Ireland farms as we are virtually totally dependent on exports? Does he agree that greater attention should be paid to imports of foreign eggs into this country in future? Does he acknowledge the excellent health record of Northern Ireland poultry flocks and of Northern Ireland eggs exported to this country?

Mr. Clarke: I shall take advice on whether any of the cases involve Northern Ireland eggs, but it may not be possible to discover that.
We all realise the concern of egg producers, and I am satisfied that nothing that I have announced today or that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said at the weekend need threaten egg sales or egg consumption in this country. On the other hand, there have been one thousand cases of salmonella connected with eggs. Much as I would wish to give the industry a totally clean bill of health, we cannot suppress the advice of our own chief medical officer and his staff. That advice is sensible and balanced and need not worry any housewife or healthy member of the public and merely warns us all to be prudent until this sudden and worrying upsurge in salmonella is brought back under control.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, according to the public health laboratory service, the majority of cases of salmonella in eggs are due to mishandling by caterers because the eggs are stored in high temperatures? Is he further aware that the British Poultry Federation has carried out a check on eggs throughout the country but has not found one case of salmonella?

Mr. Clarke: I was not aware of my hon. Friend's first point. I know that many poultry producers are making careful checks—and if they continue to do so, they will eventually discover salmonella in poultry flocks. The code is being drawn up with the industry to eliminate that risk. I appreciate the egg industry's concern and I am saying all that I can—it is the right thing to do—to reassure the public that they can continue to buy eggs. However, we cannot ignore the public health advice. There have been 1,000 cases, which is 1,000 too many. A little more care is required in the cooking of eggs to avoid infection. People should be warned not to eat raw or lightly cooked eggs. My hon. Friends should not consume prairie oysters in the foreseeable future.

Mr. Jack Thompson: Does not the adverse publicity during the past few days, especially that created by the Under-Secretary, emphasise the lack of co-operation and co-ordination between the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? Are there not conflicting statements from the two Departments? Is not one reason for the current problem the reduction in research funding?

Mr. Clarke: There has been the closest co-operation between my Department, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Government's chief medical officer. We all agree on our statements and on our message to the public. Whenever there are minor public health worries, it is inevitable that people will exaggerate. Some of the reactions to my hon. Friend's statement, including all the publicity-seeking stuff this morning about dismissal, rebounded on those making the claims because it has drawn more attention to the problem. I hope that the House will get the matter in proportion and will accept that there is a health problem, which we are tackling, and that the average member of the public is not at risk.

Mr. Robert Hicks: Does my right hon and learned Friend agree that it is the obligation of any responsible Government to inform and not to alarm? Do not the Under-Secretary's remarks this weekend fall into the latter category?
Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that the next time that we attend a football match together we will have our customary lunch of beer, cigars and a couple of Scotch eggs—none of which our hon. Friend the Under-Secretary approves of?

Mr. Clarke: I accept that it is the Government's duty to inform and not to alarm, and we shall follow that course. The House must accept that we have a duty to inform people that the risk of salmonella is higher than it was and that we are tackling that. I shall continue to consume my customary fare when I attend football matches with my hon. Friend. I am sure that that will alarm a number of hon. Members, but I intend to persist in that habit.

Mrs. Rosie Barnes: Does the Secretary of State agree that, on available statistics, there is a one in 350 million risk of salmonella poisoning from eggs? Was not

the remark made on the radio this morning—that it was as likely as being hit by a meteorite—probably true? Was it not highly irresponsible to put the egg industry at risk and to jeopardise the long-established eating habits of this nation?

Mr. Clarke: As I have already said, I do not have scientific experience in this matter. I shall consult on some of the propositions being made to me. I agree that nothing has been said that should put the egg industry at risk or justifies exaggerated public alarm. There is no point, however, in going too far the other way and exaggerating the minuscule nature of the risk. There have been 46 outbreaks of salmonella and 1,000 reported cases, and there may be others that have gone unreported. That is why we have taken action and made some comments. We do not believe that the public should be put off buying eggs.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Can the Secretary of State explain to the House why both his statement and that of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food agree, when the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture—which is an agent of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—has made a clear statement that the egg industry in Northern Ireland has a clean bill of health and that there is no poisoning? Does he realise that the Under-Secretary's statement has greatly exacerbated an already difficult position in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Minister with responsibility for agriculture in Northern Ireland are better informed about the Irish situation than I am. I would certainly rely on their advice on the industry in Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food put out a statement this afternoon, which states:
The industry are aware of the need to take effective action. And action is being taken on several other fronts.
The action is in proportion to the risk, which is not too grave. All we are giving is some sensible advice to the general public and, meanwhile, taking steps for the industry to get the situation back to normal.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a private notice question. No doubt the House wil be able to return to this matter when we have health questions next week.

Sir Peter Emery: In view of the entirely unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I give notice that I will attempt to raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as humanly possible.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take it afterwards.

"Employment for the 1990s"

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): With permission, I would like to make a statement on the White Paper "Employment for the 1990s" which I am publishing today.
Over the last five years, almost 2 million new jobs have been created in this country. Unemployment has also fallen in each of the last 27 months. Since the 1987 general election, unemployment has fallen by almost 700,000, and there has been a particularly significant reduction in long-term unemployment. Our unemployment rate is now below that of the average in the European Community, and, with an estimated 700,000 job vacancies in the economy. there is no reason why unemployment should not fall further.
One of the main reasons why unemployment has fallen so far and so fast is that, over the last nine years, this Government have sought to remove some of the main barriers that stood in the way of employment growth. The theme of this White Paper is the need to tackle barriers which could impede employment growth in the 1990s.
Ten years ago, one of the most serious barriers was poor industrial relations. In the 1970s we lost an average of 13 million working days a year through strikes. As a result, British job after British job was exported overseas, and, all too often, our industries had a record for unreliability. We have moved decisively away from that position.
The number of strikes today is lower than at any period since 1940. There is no doubt that one of the major reasons for this improvement has been this Government's reform of trade union law. The White Paper makes it clear that we will take any further legislative steps which may be necessary and that, in particular, I will be reviewing the operation of the pre-entry closed shop.
There is a clear link between pay and jobs. Pay arrangements need to be more closely linked to local labour market conditions, differences in performance and the continuing profitability of the individual company. The Government also believe that the time has come to reconsider the future of the wages councils.
There are real questions about whether a statutory system of this kind is relevant to pay determination in the 1990s; about whether, even now, wages councils give sufficient weight to the impact of settlements on jobs; and about whether a system which is so shot through with anomalies should be preserved. I am therefore publishing, together with the White Paper, a consultation document inviting views on the future of the wages council system.
As we move into the 1990s, the greatest obstacle to employment growth is likely to be lack of skills. Over the next five years we shall see a significant slowing down in the growth of the labour force and, in particular, a dramatic fall in the number of young people in the work force. The number of people in the work force under the age of 25 will fall by over a million between now and 1995.
Therefore, employers will not be able to rely solely on young recruits to meet their new skill needs. They will need to look increasingly to other sources of recruitment, such as women, unemployed people, and older workers. Above all, employers must train the people they already employ. If we are to have the skills our economy will need, employers must undertake a massive retraining effort.
This White Paper describes the radically new training framework to which the Government believe we must now move. The key element in this framework is the establishment of a network of local employer-led training and enterprise councils. These councils will be responsible both for promoting training by employers and for operating the Government's existing training programmes. They will also become responsible for the day-to-day operation of most of my Department's small firms and enterprise programmes. I shall be inviting employers to come together at local level and contract with my Department to set up these councils.
Two thirds of the council members will be drawn from private sector companies at chief executive level. Chambers of commerce, the CBI, and local employer networks will all have a vital part to play. The other council members will be drawn from organisations in the local community which want to play an active role in promoting training. The Government's aim is to establish a network of about 100 councils throughout Great Britain over the next three to four years, and I expect the first councils to be in operation before the end of 1989.
The training and enterprise councils differ from the present training framework in two important respects. First, they will be executive bodies, not advisory. They will give the leadership of the national training system to employers. It is employers who are the customers for training and they are also the main providers of training. Secondly, the establishment of the councils will move the focus of planning and delivery of training to the local level. It is in the local labour market that training needs can be best assessed and practical steps taken to meet them.
To help and advise me during the transition to these new arrangemens, I am setting up a national training task force. The task force will have up to 12 members. drawn primarily from leading figures in industry and commerce. The chairman will be Mr. Brian Wolfson, the present chairman of the Training Commission.
The White Paper also describes other steps I propose to take to improve the effectiveness of our training arrangements. These include consulting the remaining industrial training boards about the steps they need to take to become independent non-statutory organisations and determining the future of the Skills Training Agency. The agency is currently loss-making and over-dependent on Government training contracts. It would be in a better position to win more employer business if it were to move into the private sector, and the Government are therefore taking advice on this.
The changes I have set out mark a radical change in our training arrangements. International competition is fierce and the old ways have not been successful. People are this country's key resource. Seven out of 10 of the work force in the year 2000 are already in the work force now and therefore will be unable to benefit from the changes taking place in education. What is needed is the fundamental reform of our training arrangements so that they are employer-led and based on the local labour market.
Over the past five years, we have had dramatic success in creating new jobs and reducing unemployment. For the 1990s, success in training is the best guarantee of jobs and continued growth.

Mr. Michael Meacher: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition fully accept that a major new training initiative is urgently needed, when the


CBI is now reporting that a huge and growing skills gap is limiting output in one third of companies and constraining investment in nearly half, and that more than two out of five companies expect it to worsen? Is he further aware that half of the total work force got no training last year and that one third has never had any? Yet he is now proposing that employers, who have shown little or no foresight or will in meeting their own training needs, for which they have the strongest private incentive, should be the very people to be put into the driving seat to meet the training shortfall for the nation as a whole. Is it not perverse that employers who have persistently refused to spend enough of their own money on training their own employees are now being put in undisputed control of £3 billion of public money to train others—rather like putting Barlow Clowes in charge of investment protection?
Is the Secretary of State aware that our most successful competitors are moving in the opposite direction by adopting a national training strategy, based on an overall skills audit to meet the needs of industry, by ensuring that employers invest adequately in training their own employees and by having Government investment in high quality skills training for the unemployed? This Government, in their fourth restructuring of adult training in nine months, are now passing the buck to a series of unrepresentative and unaccountable local quangos. How can the Secretary of State justify giving employers absolute control, when the Government, local authorities, trade unions and the voluntary sector have at least as much, if not more, commitment and expertise in achieving high training standards?
I shall now deal with funding. It is widely acknowledged that employment training is grossly under-funded. Will the White Paper add a single extra penny of new money to that budget? Given the parallel organisation, for several years, involving retaining ET while switching to the new training enterprise councils, will the Secretary of State not be cutting the level of training, unless he also increases funding? What provision is there in the White Paper to ensure that employers will be spending a penny more on training? Will not the removal of the training levy, through the abolition of the statutory powers of the industrial training boards, actually reduce employers' spending?
The proposals are based on the experience of the United States, but is the Secretary of State aware that, while he has lifted American ideas, he has omitted the legal safeguards that exist there against job substitution, the duplication of training provision and exploitative pay rates? That is one reason why the Opposition totally oppose the abolition of the wages councils.
These proposals come from a Government who largely created the skills gap by abolishing the grant levy system for training those in work, by chopping three quarters of the industrial training boards, by axing one third of the skill centres and by decimating apprenticeships. Is it not clear that the White Paper is motivated far more by ideological dogma that favours the privatisation of training than by a desire to build a new national consensus to confront and overcome the huge skills gap facing the nation? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has often spoken about a low-pay, low-skill, low-tech economy. The White Paper will help to deliver that objective.

Mr. Fowler: I cannot bear to take lectures from the hon. Gentleman on training. When he spoke about a national consensus, one remembers his own performance on employment training. He, the Labour party and the Trades Union Congress turned their backs not only on the unemployed, but on training. His own record on that was lamentable, and he is in no position to lecture anyone about training incentives.
Our aim is to achieve a well-trained, professional work force for the 1990s. In essence, we want more training of staff to be carried out by employers. The hon. Gentleman made international comparisons, but he should consider West Germany's programmes, which are based on the chambers of commerce. In this country, it is employers who understand the local needs of the labour market and the local needs for training. The training enterprise councils will be employer-led and they will involve local organisations. Why are they to be employer-led? The reason is that they are training for industry. Employers know what the skill needs are because they are the customers for training and the providers of training. Everything that I have been told by organisations such as the Confederation of British Industry and the chambers of commerce has led me to have confidence that employers will take the opportunity with both hands.
There will be no cut in resources. A new programme—the business growth through training programme—is proposed. It will unify 10 existing programmes and will have £55 million to help to encourage training for small firms.
The position of the wages councils has changed fundamentally since their inception in 1909. The system is out of date. There are, for example, still wages councils that look after coffin furniture workers, flax and hemp workers and ostrich and fancy feather workers. Those councils are still in existence. There is no evidence that the changes that we made in 1986 affecting young people had any impact on the position of young people, except that unemployment among the 16 to 19-year-olds has come down by no less than 62 per cent.
The Opposition have no credibility in their views on training and unemployment or on programmes to bring down unemployment. The White Paper will bring about more employment now and, above all, more employment in the 1990s.

Mr. Jim Lester: I assure my right hon. Friend that I welcome the system of local delivery, for two principal reasons. First, it will minimise the number of free-loaders, who have been a problem in training for as long as I have been involved. Secondly, what is needed more than anything else is a period of continuity, so that those who are involved in training can convince local communities that training is an essential part of any company and essential for the future of this country. We need a period of continuity so that people can get on with the training.

Mr. Fowler: I accept what my hon. Friend, with all his experience, has said. The training and enterprise councils will be responsible for encouraging and promoting training. For the first time, we have brought together training for the employed and for the unemployed and training and development for small businesses. It is crucial to the proposals that training is carried out at local level,


as that is where progress will be made. I have no doubt that proposals will be put forward that will have the effect of transforming training in this country.

Mr. Ken Eastham: Now that the Secretary of State has admitted that we are facing a training crisis, will he also admit that the Government abolished three quarters of the industrial training boards and closed down skill centres, which were making profits? Is it not a fact that one of the most successful skills training organisations is the engineering industry training board? Will the Secretary of State ensure that it will have an assured budget which will provide some continuity because at present it does not know where it stands from one year to another? What steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure the quality and standards of training under self-regulation? Can he guarantee that we shall not have the bad standards of the past few years?

Mr. Fowler: The Training Agency will continue to monitor standards for the training of unemployed people. We shall also seek to guide and examine the training that is provided for employed people, so that there will be monitoring and checking arrangements.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the industrial training boards. There are now only seven training boards, which have progressively reduced their dependence on levies and exempted most companies. The clothing and allied products industry training board levies under half of the relevant companies and receives 90 per cent. of its costs from training services. We want to move all the boards in that direction, while keeping the good qualities of the training boards.
I must point out to the House that, at the moment, the Skills Training Agency is making a loss of about £20 million on a turnover of about £55 million. I put it to the hon. Gentleman—the Public Accounts Committee has already raised this point—that in the face of those figures the Government have no alternative but to seek a way of satisfying and finally reconciling that position.

Sir Peter Hordern: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, for many of us, the sooner the wages councils are done away with the better? However, will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the West German scheme, to which he has referred, produces a much greater number of people with vocational qualifications as opposed to vocational training? Does my right hon. Friend think that it is a good idea to consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to see whether there is cause for joint action in producing more people with vocational qualifications than is the case at present?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend has made a strong point. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and I will work closely together on this. The basic case for seeking to take action on training is that seven out of every 10 people who will be in the labour force in the year 2000 are in the labour force now, so unless we act on training in employment now, those people will miss out on any improvements that take place in the education system.
It is right to consult on the future of the wages councils. They are full of anomalies and date back to 1909. Looking at the position today and comparing it with what it was in

that period, one sees that today's circumstances would not lead anyone to set up the kind of wages council system that we have at the moment.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Although the Secretary of State is correct to identify the need for greater local sensitivity in the organisation and delivery of such services, will he concede that the absence of any commitment on the part of the Government to increase real funding is bound to be an impediment to the progress that he wishes to see achieved?
In looking at local sensitivities and regional disparities throughout Britain in the context of the abolition of the wages councils, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in many parts of the country—my own is an example—there is genuine rural deprivation because of distinct local geographic and economic factors? Surely the Government have a duty to maintain a tolerable minimum income that can be met on the part of the potential work force?
Finally, on education, will the Secretary of State confirm that, despite his statement, as a country we are still lagging woefully behind our main industrial competitors in gearing our education system to the available and potential labour market?

Mr. Fowler: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, we have made a great number of strides in the past four or five years with, for example, the training and vocational education initiative and the new compact system., which has been an outstanding success and has taken off in a short amount of time.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that wages councils govern only 11 per cent. of the work force and that the two thirds of the work force who are governed by wages councils are part-time workers in any event. Therefore, by definition, the other 90 per cent. of the work force are not covered by wages councils at the moment.
As far as the task of the training enterprise councils is concerned, I must make it clear that training in employment is first and foremost a task for the employers themselves. It is not a task that Government can carry out. We are not in a position to double-guess the requirements and needs of employers. Training is essentially a task for employers, and I am confident that they will take up that challenge.

Mr. John Bowis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the White Paper will be widely welcomed by those who believe that the next stage in improving the employment position is to ensure that more people acquire skills? Is he further aware that there will be a particular welcome for the greater involvement of employers in the scheme? Will he take note of the points that have been made about education, and does he agree that to date the further education sector has played an important part in working with employers, in creating jobs and in helping people to acquire skills? Therefore, in what way does my right hon. Friend see that sector playing a full part in the future?

Mr. Fowler: I believe that our further education system will continue to play a part in training and it is important that it should—certainly the offer is there as far as the Government and the Training Agency are concerned In most local authorities, such involvement is taking place, and I hope that will continue.


The basic point about the involvement of employers is that training must be relevant to jobs. It is the employers who provide the jobs, so training must be relevant to their needs. We are following the logic of that in the new training structure that we are setting up.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The Secretary of State must know that some of us who have had experience of training in engineering and other areas have been explaining to the Government for years that we were heading for a crisis unless we had proper training, carried out by the employers as well as by the Government, and with the involvement of trade unions. I am absolutely delighted that the Secretary of State has now come round to the view that some of us have been expressing for a long time.
How will the White Paper affect the position in the construction industry where there is the growth of lump labour and the decline of direct labour through the local authorities, which used to train people in the construction industry? What will this scheme do to ensure that we have proper training and apprentices in the construction industry? Will the construction industry training board be strengthened or diminished?

Mr. Fowler: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will concede that training problems go back over many years. It is complete nonsense to say that training has suddenly become a problem in the past 10 years: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.
As for industrial training boards, in general the most effective incentive for companies to train is an understanding of their own skills needs and not a centralised regulatory system, based on statutory powers. As I have said in the White Paper—the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of studying it—I recognise that particular issues affect the construction industry training board, and we shall be talking with the CITB about those.

Mr. Simon Coombs: To what extent are the new TECs modelled on the private industry councils in the United States, which my right hon. Friend had the opportunity of studying earlier this year? What encouragement or inducements will be given to the chief executives of companies in local economies to join the new councils? Does he have an answer to the problem that faces constituents such as mine where there are relatively few chief executives of large employers in our towns, but large numbers of plant directors, at lower than chief executive level? Finally, if my right hon. Friend is encouraged and stimulated by the PIC example in the United States, does he intend to give TECs any interface or mechanism to link them with local education authorities at secondary level to encourage employers to have some input into what is taught in our schools?

Mr. Fowler: Obviously, there must be a relationship between the training enterprise councils and the education system. Indeed, there must be a relationship and direct links between training and education and between industry and education. I believe that those links are developing.
My hon. Friend asked me about the origins of this plan. It certainly contains elements of the United States

experience and the West German experience, but above all it recognises that employers locally know the needs of their labour market and therefore the training needs to guide us.
My hon. Friend also asked me about the positions of chief executives and staff. One real advantage of the programme that we are putting forward is that we can get good people, top people, from local companies to come on to the boards of the training enterprise councils, but the work will be carried out by the professional staff who are now employed by the Training Agency, and who can be seconded to the training enterprise councils. I hope that in that way we can get the best of both worlds.

Mr. Frank Field: As the Secretary of State has commended the West Germany scheme to the House, will he tell us when, under his proposals, average skill levels in this country will equal those of West Germany? He need not be too precise in his answer: the year will do.

Mr. Fowler: During the 1990s we shall be able to catch up with the West Germans. If the hon. Gentleman considers my White Paper, he will see that comparisons with West Germany and with Germany go back not just 20, 30 or 40 years, but well into the last century. It is a long-standing problem and I believe that the TEC is the best hope that we have to catch up not only with Germany, but with our other major competitors. If we do not do that, our prospects for the 1990s will not be as good as they otherwise would be.

Mr. James Paice: As somebody who has worked closely with the Training Agency, will my right hon. Friend accept how pleased I am that its excellent staff will be part of the new proposal and under the guidance and control of those at the front end of the consumption of training? Will my right hon. Friend also accept that it is the skills shortage, in part caused by the fact that employers have not been in control of available training, which has led to the present problems faced by industry?

Mr. Fowler: In the past, we have failed to attract the involvement and enthusiasm of all employers in the way that we might. That is not to say that some extremely impressive training is not already taking place. The aim must be to bring up the standards of every company in this country to the standards of some of the best. I believe that some real progress has been made in the past four or five years, and I want even more progress based on that.

Mr. James Lamond: Why should we have any confidence in employers leading the way in training, when the lack of apprenticeships in the past few years has clearly demonstrated that they cannot see beyond the end of their noses? We not only need to train people for the jobs that are available now: we also need a long-term strategy for training in the future. Employers who are concerned only with the present profits that can be made will not pay that factor sufficient attention.

Mr. Fowler: I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is the employers who provide the jobs. Whatever his own ideological hang-up on this might be, training must be relevant to the jobs that the employers are providing. He asks what evidence there is of employers changing; I believe that it is there for him to see. One example is that of the compacts that have now been formed between


education and industrial companies. Thirty of such compacts are up and beginning to run after a few months. That is an incredible rate of progress. There is new enthusiasm among employers and we should use it.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that this kind of programme is vital and will be warmly welcomed by manufacturing industry? Does he also accept that the problem does not lie so much with school leavers, because within five years they will be able to get any job for which they have been trained at school? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the great problem lies with the unions, which, last time, helped to kill off the apprenticeships that are the seed corn of all industry? Does my right hon. Friend believe that, this time, there is any greater hope that the unions will not just look upon people who are training as cheap labour and so scare them away, or make sure that they do not get the jobs that are vital to the country?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is not just a matter of employers understanding the importance of training, but of the work force and the trade unions understanding its importance. I believe that the Trades Union Congress made a bad mistake regarding the employment training programme for unemployed people, and I believe that many members of the TUC recognise that. I hope that that mistake will not be repeated with training in employment.

Mr. Roy Beggs: In the absence of any reference in the statement to Northern Ireland, is the Minister indirectly complimenting us on the excellence of our education system and the training facilities already in place? Will he please convey to those industrialists who are fearful of not having an adequately trained work force in the future that we in Northern Ireland have lived with low wages and high unemployment and that there is a great appetite for employment opportunities in the Province? Will he commend those industrialists to look to Northern Ireland as a possible location for some of the new investment that they may require in the future? I am confident that the excellence and skills of our work force and the good relations that have always existed between management and employees will be rewarding for those who take up the opportunity of investing in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Fowler: I am glad to endorse what the hon. Gentleman says about the importance of Northern Ireland and also about the importance of investing there. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is sitting on the Front Bench and he will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said. The reason why Northern Ireland is not mentioned in the White Paper is that it does not apply to it, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is presently consulting on this issue.

Mr. David Madel: In relation to existing skills and the need for new skills in the construction industry, will the new arrangements allow firms whose activities are factory production orientated, which do not have any construction site activities and which therefore, get no training or advice from the CITB, to withdraw from it, providing that they pay the levy that they would have paid towards their own training activities?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend will understand from my statement that we are seeking to move the statutory industrial training boards to an independent, non-statutory basis. The specific issue that my hon. Friend has raised is essentially a matter for the CITB and industry to consider under the new arrangements. Certainly, if my hon. Friend thinks that something is unfair, we shall be glad to look into it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must have regard to the business on the Order Paper and the fact that we have employment questions tomorrow. I shall allow questions to continue until 4.35 pm.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Although I acknowledge that we are facing a skills shortage in the economy and although I accept that we must change the way in which we train our young people and the unemployed, does the Minister accept that, particularly in rural areas and constituencies such as mine, it will be very difficult for employers to find the time and the resources to take the lead in the type of enterprise that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind under the new TECs? Does he accept that, especially in rural areas, we need a far more co-ordinated approach and that the Welsh Development Agency and the Scottish Development Agency should also be involved and have a role to play? Does he also agree that schools, and especially careers teachers, need to be given more resources to provide advice on training? In the past few weeks in the press we have heard talk about the Enterprise Scotland initiative. Where does that fit in with the current programme?

Mr. Fowler: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will make a statement shortly—it may be tomorrow—and will also issue a. White Paper then about the position in Scotland.

Mr. Tony Baldry (Banbury): Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although machinery and technology may be the same the world over, what makes the competitive difference is the skills of the people using that machinery and technology? The skills of our people are our greatest asset; at the end of the day they are our only asset. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the White Paper will do much to help to develop the necessary skills? My right hon. Friend should be assured that we in north Oxfordshire and in the Cherwell valley want to be among the first of the TECs, building on what we have already achieved with Enterprise Cherwell, the local employer training network and other initiatives to ensure that, locally, we have the skills to take us into the next century.

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful for that offer. I am sure that there will be a number of areas around the country that will want to make bids soon as a result of the White Paper. Obviously we shall consider them all.
What my hon. Friend has said about training is absolutely right. The demographic influence must also be underlined, because, by 1995, there will be a million fewer under-25s in the labour force. That adds to the importance of training in employment as well as considering other items such as training unemployed people to acquire the resources, and the source of new recruits.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: How can the Secretary of State come to the House and say that the


greatest obstacle to employment is the shortage of skills, without any recognition that this Government have been in power for the past nine years and he has been a Minister in it for the past nine years? If there is a shortage of skills, the Government must take the prime responsibility for it.
If the right hon. Gentleman does not recognise that, will he accompany me—we both represent west midlands constituencies—to see the training schools of major engineering companies that have been shut in the west midlands in the past nine years? Does he acknowledge that two thirds of engineering apprenticeships in the west midlands have collapsed under this Government? Is not the abiding legacy of the past nine years that a whole generation of young people have left school with no opportunity for skills training? He has created a generation without hope.

Mr. Fowler: That is just political jargon and slogans. It is also shallow and superficial. Probably more progress has been made in training during the past five years than during the past 40 years. If the hon. Gentleman wants to go round the west midlands, he should look at the training at Rover, Jaguar and Lucas, get up to date on the current position in the west midlands and then come back to the House.

Mr. John Watts: In view of the need to make the maximum use of skills in the economy, especially in the Thames valley, where the problem of skills shortage is not new, does my right hon. Friend have specific proposals for the special training needs of disabled people and ethnic minorities, whose abilities are much under-used in the economy?

Mr. Fowler: We have sought within the training programme to make special provision for the disabled. We shall keep that under review, because I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we must use their skills. The same applies to members of ethnic minorities. Recent research conducted in London shows that many of them have skills and can go into employment. I want more people from the ethnic minorities to go into employment, and oppor-tunities for them to do so will arise during the next few years.

Mr. Allen McKay: Do not the facts speak for themselves? Since 1979, industry has closed training schools, dismissed its training officers and got rid of indentured apprenticeships. I am talking about real training, not about the superficial training that the Government provide. Genuine training in crafts and genuine indentured apprenticeships have disappeared because of Government policies. The only way to get them back is to encourage employers to take them on again, but it cannot be done without money, statutory obligations and Government intervention. That is the way that we should go.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman believes that statutory obligations and central control will cure the skills shortages, but he is speaking against a background of failures in the past. Since the 1960s, such policies have failed. We recognise that employers have the crucial responsibility for training in employment, and it is sensible to base that training at local level.

Mr. James Cran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the White paper emphasises, crucially, the contribution that training can make to closing the productivity gap between Britain and its major European and American competitors? Does he further agree that there is no reason to believe that employers will not rise to the challenge that he has set for them, given the contribution that they have already made to the youth training scheme?

Mr. Fowler: That is right, in relation not only to YTS but to employment training. In addition, productivity is improving substantially. The position has improved greatly during the past five years, and we now have a good opportunity permanently to improve our training arrangements.

Mr. Max Madden: Does the Secretary of State recognise that many of my constituents are at a loss to understand why the Government plan to spend £7 million to £8 million on building a city technology college in Bradford, which few of my constituents want, at a time when Bradford college, which makes a positive contribution to skills training, is having its budget cut by £200,000 and must sack staff and cut classes? Will he investigate the matter urgently?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, in Bradford and west Yorkshire generally, employment training is regarded as a complete flop? What safeguards will there be against employers who are ready to reap the benefits of training for which other employers have paid but who are not prepared themselves to invest in proper training?

Mr. Fowler: The city technology college is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, but I believe that it will add to the skills in the country. It will certainly not detract from them.
Far from employment training being a flop, during the past 12 weeks it has got off to an extremely good start. Almost 100,000 people are being trained under the scheme, which is vastly in excess of what the Labour Government achieved. It is no good the hon. Gentleman saying that it is a flop. It is not, but he and his hon. Friend have put every obstacle in the way of training. The public will remember the Labour party's record on that.

Mr. Richard Holt: In relation to the remarks about training officers, will my right hon. Friend note that the number of training officers in the Institute of Personnel Management has grown to such an extent that they have developed their own section?
May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the furniture industry? One reason why there is an acute skills shortage in that industry today is that the trade unions did not allow us to take on as many apprentices or dilutees as we wanted to. They obstinately refused to allow numbers to be increased. I welcome the fact that the pre-entry closed shop will be abolished. Will my right hon. Friend examine the position of the London furniture school, which is under threat? It is the only centre of excellence in Europe for the repair and maintenance of musical instruments.

Mr. Fowler: I shall certainly look into that matter. I welcome what my hon. Friend said. As for the pre-entry


closed shop, the White Paper is concerned with barriers to employment, and needing a union card before one can get a job is such a barrier to employment.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: Did the Secretary of State see the comments reported today by the chairman of the Trustee Savings bank, who suggested that the acute skills shortage was a socially divisive time bomb? Will the White Paper, with its threat to industrial training boards, its lack of additional resources and its commitment to an organisation of training that was rejected in the Secretary of State's original White Paper on employment training, strengthen the fears about an acute shortage of training and skills? When will the Secretary of State face the fact that the Government's record has left the country short of skills and of the ability to compete, especially in the Common Market after 1992?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that skills shortages have appeared suddenly in the past 10 years. Any objective commentator would say that skills shortages in Britain go back over 50, 60 and 70 years. The devices used by the Labour Government have been proved not to work, and we are putting that right.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the two motions on statutory instruments.

Ordered,

That the Agriculture Improvement (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 1983) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &c.

That the draft Merchant Shipping (Safety at Work Regulations) (Non-UK Ships) Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &c.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members often complain that too little Northern Ireland legislation comes forward in the form of a Bill for proper debate in the House. I do not think that such a complaint could be directed at the Queen's Speech because the House will have a full opportunity to debate and to consider in Committee many of the measures in it. Today we shall debate the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Bill and tomorrow the House will have before it the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill. Although the latter is a United Kingdom measure, it contains some important provisions relating to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I apologise to the Secretary of State for intervening so early in his speech. He will have seen the comments in today's newspapers from which it appears that the Government will want to derogate from the ruling of the Strasbourg court. That might arise in tomorrow's debate and it would he useful if the Secretary of State could tell us whether that will be included in the Bill that the Government intend to bring before the House tomorrow.

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman had better wait and see. I shall leave it to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to speak about that. I do not want to anticipate anything that he might say. I note what the hon. Gentleman has said.
I was speaking about the Northern Ireland matters that the House will have a full opportunity to debate. In that context we shall also have a Bill on fair employment. This comes on the back of the criminal evidence order that the House approved at the end of the last Session. It was about the ban on direct broadcasting by certain organisations and was approved by the House after being presented by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The police and criminal evidence order for Northern Ireland will give added rights of protection to those taken in for questioning. We have a fairly full range of measures and legislation coming before the House and they will be dealt with in their proper order in due course.
Before I deal in proper order with today's Bill, perhaps I could be permitted to put the legislation in its overall context because I am conscious that each measure always has its critics. Each item that is proposed is approved or rejected by one side or the other. It seems to be left to a few hon. Members to put them into context and to show how they form a general pattern and approach to the issues that we face in Northern Ireland. I should like to put the Bill in the context of our overall theme of fairness and justice for the people of Northern Ireland. We want to ensure that we have an effective response to the evil of terrorism and proper protection for the rights of the community as well as respect for the rights of individuals.
That which we seek is blunt and simple and perhaps it is fairly obvious, but it is worth repeating against the


background of some of the criticisms that we receive. What we seek for the people of Northern Ireland is the same as that which we seek for people throughout the United Kingdom. We seek better prospects for jobs and self respect for people. We seek better housing and better education for our children. We want to see proper health care and good amenities and we want to see better community relations, tolerance, peace and order and the cessation of violence in the Province.
Those are our overall objectives, but no single measure or item can go to the heart of solving the problems of Northern Ireland. On a broad front, we seek to advance the cause of good government and to improve the condition of people in Northern Ireland in all those areas. Obviously those objectives are shared by the overwhelming majority of the people who wish to see nothing more than the cessation of violence and a better and safer life for themselves and their families.
In the work carried out by me and by my colleagues in government, we pay great attention to such issues as economic development. Of course we take pride in the fall in unemployment and in the confidence of so many companies in Northern Ireland that have substantially increased their investment in the past year. That has improved employment prospects. We are pleased to see companies from overseas and shall seek to maintain, as the latest public expenditure statement shows and as my hon. Friend the Minister of State made clear, our determination to support industrial development and investment in the Province. We want more jobs, but at the same time we want to ensure that there is no discrimination in the distribution of those jobs and that opportunities are presented across communities without regard to religion or opinion.
There has been substantial investment in housing in recent years; we want to maintain that level of investment, which is much higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom. We want to see an increase in home ownership and the elimination of the worst housing conditions in some of the high-rise flats. I confirm our determination to see improvements in that respect.
I have considerable admiration for the standard of health care in the Province. Since I have been Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I have gained considerable respect for the hospitals and the general practitioners in the Health Service there. The Province is well served by the Health Service and we wish to see that maintained. We also want to see high standards in education. It is an easy and proud claim that Northern Ireland has high standards in educational achievement, but we also know that it has a serious problem because of the number of people who fail to achieve any qualifications.
There is no room for complacency in education, and we are keen to see how education can play its part in dealing with conditions in the Province. I emphasise again the importance that we attach to the initiative by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), of support for integrated education. That will prove to be an important contribution.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I know that, conventionally, debate on Second Reading is wide, but I remind the Secretary of State that he is going very wide of the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. King: I seek to explain the background to the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I understand the point that you are making. It is important to tell the House about the measures that will be coming forward. As I said at the beginning of my speech—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must realise that it is difficult for the Chair subsequently to contain the debate within the proper parameters when the Secretary of State ranges as wide as he is doing.

Mr. King: I apologise, and entirely accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that Northern Ireland Members are concerned that our opportunities for debate in the House on Northern Ireland measures are limited, and I sought to do the House the courtesy of outlining the context in which we are bringing forward the Bill. I entirely understand your remarks, and I will respect them.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I trust that the Secretary of State has in mind—perhaps he is not able to deal with this because of the ruling of the Chair—the serious position in the shipyards.

Mr. King: I have all these problems in mind. They are all part of the framework. Anybody who knows Northern Ireland understands, in the politics of Northern Ireland, the game of pluses and minuses—who is up and who is down—and knows that these are important considerations. They are reflected in this legislation, as every hon. Member who represents a Northern Ireland constituency knows.
We seek in the measures that we are taking, and in particular those dealing with peace and order and the cessation of violence, to respond to people's interests and concerns on matters in which terrorism and support for violence pose challenges to democratic society. These concerns are relevant to the Bill. We have taken a number of steps in law and order to try to ensure that the work that the security forces do for the protection of the community is as effective as possible.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: Is there not a contradiction in that, at a time when we are introducing week after week legislation dealing with the law in Northern Ireland, the Government will not, I believe, obey the diktats of the European Court in relation to the law with which we shall deal tomorrow? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that petulant ladies make bad law?

Mr. King: I think that I am suffering from one or two late arrivals to the debate. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in his place when the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) raised that point and sought to get me to comment on it. I suggested that he should wait, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should wait, for tomorrow's debate when the subject can be properly addressed. I am conscious of my responsibilities. I recognise the connection between all these items, the perception of them, and the perception of the legislation before the House. It will be perceived not simply in isolation, but by many in relation to other matters that are


currently on the agenda. That is why I took the liberty, subject to correction, to put these matters in the widest context possible.
In law and order, we have sought to address the concerns about the position of the security forces, to ensure that the balance of justice with the firm pursuit of terrorism can be maintained, and that the security forces have the necessary facilities and are furnished with the right instruments to be able to discharge their responsibilities to the community. I have already referred to several measures in the last Session that addressed this problem. Others will be introduced with the legislation tomorrow. We believe that they provide protection for the community by providing the security forces with those proper instruments, but we also believe that they provide the proper respect for the rights of the individual, as I said earlier.
We have taken a number of steps to try to ensure that individual rights are properly protected, whether in measures that have already been discussed, the codes of conduct for the RUC, the codes for the Army and security forces, the guide to the exercise of the emergency powers or tackling the problems of delay of appeals so that people do not feel that justice is delayed and there is some inhibition on their right of appeal. Those steps are a measure of our determination to protect individual rights as well.
Against that background, the Bill seeks to address certain grievances and anomalies in local government. I begin with two anomalies. Clauses I and 2 deal with the franchise for district council elections in Northern Ireland and bring it broadly into line with that for Parliament. That change will sweep away earlier legislation widely perceived as discriminating against Nationalists in Northern Ireland. It will enfranchise for district council elections in Northern Ireland about 10,500 people, called "I" voters—that "I" stands for imperial Parliament voters—who are at present unable to vote in local council elections. They are people who, under the 1962 legislation for Northern Ireland, failed to meet the special nationality and residence qualifications laid down for district council elections. This legislation confines the right to vote to Commonwealth citizens who either were born in Northern Ireland or have resided in the United Kingdom for the whole of the seven years preceding the qualifying date for registration.

Mr. William Ross: The Secretary of State has said that every one of those 10,000 people who gains a vote is naturally a Nationalist. How does he prove that sweeping statement? We cannot allow it to go unchallenged. There is no evidence that that is so, and many Army wives and many who might vote Unionist are among those 10,000.

Mr. King: I said that it was "widely perceived" as discriminating against Nationalists. It is true that among those who will now be enfranchised are the wives of service men who find themselves unable to meet the qualification of having been in the United Kingdom for the whole of the seven years. If it is perceived as discriminating both against Nationalist and Unionist voters, and if therefore it will command the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House, I shall be delighted. That would be a happy outcome.
It is no secret in the history of this measure that it was perceived at the time as discriminating in that way. Citizens of the Irish Republic who are not also Commonwealth citizens, British citizens who do not meet the residence requirements and wives of service men are excluded from voting. This change will extend the franchise to them. This restriction has already been removed in parliamentary elections and for Assembly elections. The discrimination in respect of council elections has persisted for too long. I hope that I shall have the support of the House for the removal of this long-standing grievance.

Mr. Ian Gow: Is my right hon. Friend able to confirm that, after the provisions of clause I have been become effective, the franchise for district elections in Northern Ireland will be identical to the franchise for district elections in Wales, Scotland and England?

Mr. King: I have a feeling that my hon. Friend has asked that question because there is a trick in it. I shall get that checked rather than reply off the cuff, and I shall ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to answer. I say that in the kindest possible way because there may be some point of which I am not aware. I warn my hon. Friend that there are two other changes which I think will go much closer to achieving his objective. At the moment, in Northern Ireland, convicted prisoners can vote at district council, although not parliamentary elections. Certain patients compulsorily detained in mental institutions or otherwise unable to make a patient's declaration are also unable to vote. That involves about 850 people. The legislation will remove the right from them as they do not have the opportunity to vote elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Those are the key changes in the voting arrangements.
The second anomaly is covered by clause 9, which relates to the changes in the arrangements for disqualification. At present, for a person whose term of imprisonment or detention in the British Isles or the Republic of Ireland is for three months or more, disqualification applies while he is in prison for live years from the date of conviction. The proposal in clause 9 will change that to five years from the date of discharge.
It will of course be apparent that the effect of the present arrangement means that those who are convicted and receive a heavy sentence serve no disqualification if the five years has expired by the time they leave prison. However, people who serve a short sentence—perhaps of three months, which is the qualifying level—may emerge from prison and still have to serve another four years and nine months' disqualification. That is an anomaly, and the change proposed in the legislation is that the disqualification period shall apply from the date of discharge.
The most controversial part of the Bill concerns the declaration against terrorism. Clauses 3 and 5 provide for the declaration against terrorism to be made by candidates at, respectively, district council and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland. Clause 4 provides for a similar declaration to be made by candidates co-opted to fill casual vacancies on district councils. The terms of the declaration in each case are set out in schedule 2. Candidates will be required to declare that, if elected, they will not express support for or approval of proscribed


organisations or acts of terrorism—that is to say, violence for political ends—connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland.
Clause 6 defines the behaviour that will constitute a breach of the declaration. Clause 7 sets out the enforcement mechanism, which will be an application to the High Court for a determination that the declaration has been breached.

Mr. Eric S. Hafer: With regard to the precise definition of terrorism, the Secretary of State has referred to violence for political ends. The fact is that Governments have always believed in violence for political ends. There was terrorism in fighting Nazis in Germany. What is the precise definition of terrorism? Is it only violence against us? What are we really talking about?

Mr. King: The definition is spelt out as it is in the Bill to clarify the matter. It is violence against the person in that definition. As the hon. Gentleman understands, this is a vexed matter and that is why the rather strange definition is included, in somewhat less legalistic language, as "violence for political ends". In the end, that is a matter for a court to determine, as are the interpretations. That is my understanding of it.

Mr. William Ross: rose—

Mr. Martin Flannery: rose—

Mr. King: I want to finish this part of my speech.
Clause 7 also defines the persons enabled to apply for a determination of breach of declaration. In respect of a councillor, that includes the council itself, other members of the council or electors of the council. In respect of the Assembly members, they are other members of the Assembly or electors of the Assembly constituency concerned.
Clause 8 sets out the consequences of a determination by the High Court that a declaration has been breached. The councillor or Assembly member to whom the determination applies will be disqualified from both council and Assembly office for a period of five years from the date of the determination.

Mr. Flannery: Will the Secretary of State kindly explain a little more his opinion of people, whether or not they are terrorists, who profoundly believe that they are fighting for a cause and hold a belief—something like the French Resistance? Does he really believe that they will not sign something and that they will tell the truth if they profoundly believe in their cause? I think that he is dreaming. I do not think that it is on.

Mr. King: The most offensive sentence in the English language of recent times from a so-called political platform was the statement, if I can remember the words correctly, "Will anyone here object if, with the ballot paper in this hand and an Armalite in this hand, we take power in Ireland?" What that sentence says, and what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) I am sure is not seeking to justify but is seeking to believe is inevitable, is that we can tolerate a situation in which people will exploit to the uttermost the freedoms and opportunities that a democratic society can provide while at the same time they reserve the right to kill, maim and intimidate those who argue against them.

Mr. Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In his argument the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to say that I agree with the statement about an Armalite in one hand and a ballot paper in the other. Let me place it on the record that I am totally opposed to that. The Secretary of State must not say things like that. I was asking him to give us a detailed explanation of how he thinks that someone who believes in something profoundly or wrongly will tell the truth if that is against what he profoundly believes in. That is what I am asking the Secretary of State to do. That has nothing to do with what he imputes to me.

Mr. King: The House will have heard that I was most careful not to suggest that the hon. Gentleman was in any way seeking to support or condone violence. The problem that the hon. Gentleman was trying to state was that this is not an appropriate response to the problems of those who try to take full advantage of the democratic freedoms and yet at the same time defile the sacredness of democracy by their attempt to use violence and intimidation to get their way.
The hon. Member for Hillsborough made a specific point. He asked whether I seriously thought that those people will not just sign the declaration in any case. They may do it. That is all right, but they do that in the knowledge that, if they sign and then commit what may be demonstrated and can be established in the courts to be an offence against that declaration, they will face the consequences.
At the moment, they face no consequences whatsoever. I have complete sympathy with councillors in council chambers in Northern Ireland trying to discharge their responsibilities to their electorate in a democratic and honest way. I find it intolerable that they must listen to and endure that kind of unacceptable abuse. It is a total abuse of the democratic process. Would the hon. Gentleman just walk by on the other side? Would he say that we must have some respect for people's views which are not quite the same as our own, or would he stop and say, "I respect other people's democratic opinions expressed in a democratic way, but if they are carried to the extent of violence and intimidation, there has to be some protection, some right of access for democratic councillors to protect them against that situation"?

Mr. John Hume: If I heard him aright, the right hon. Gentleman is saying that, if elected, councillors will not call for support for violent organisations, but they can call for as much support as they like, including the quotation that he has just given, during the election campaign. That means that if they are elected and call for the same support in the council chamber, if a member of the public, not the authority, takes a civil action and they lose their seat, they can fight the election again, use the same language again and get re-elected. Are not the Government handing them a weapon to disrupt local government?

Mr. King: I listened to a broadcast this morning in which the hon. Gentleman made a similar point about what happens during an election campaign. Whatever we try to do to deal with the evil of terrorism, there is no easy answer; there is no pat solution that is absolutely foolproof and perfect every time. The hon. Gentleman knows that I have an army of excellent conscientious officials who have warned everyone of the difficulties and the problems and


of what the anomalies might be. Should we sit here saying that everything is too difficult and do nothing? In an election, should we try to rule every single candidate, even the biggest nutter who will never get near saving his deposit, and inspect every word he says, or should we make it a requirement of candidature that a person should be a valid candidate? Those people have achieved the opportunity of a democratic election and the platform provided by that democratic election, and before election a candidate must at least know that he runs that risk. It is not a perfect solution or an automatic guarantee, but at least they have to face that risk.
I may not persuade the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). but, although we do not believe every poll we see, it would appear that he has not persuaded the members of his party who, in the poll that I saw, overwhelmingly believe the measure to be a sensible and necessary precaution, and that people standing for democratic election in Northern Ireland should have no hesitation or inhibition about making that declaration.

Mr. Julian Brazier: My right hon. Friend has just spoken about every option having some difficulties. Will he join me in wondering whether, in a few minutes' time, we shall hear at last some constructive suggestion from the Opposition Front Bench on at least one option?

Mr. King: I should not like to raise my hon. Friend's hopes on that. I have seen the Labour party's comments in the statement issued at the time of the consultative paper, expressing reservations about it.
I believe that it is not sufficient for hon. Members simply to walk by and say that the situation has to be allowed and tolerated. The House will know that other, more substantial, approaches might have been taken, and I have no doubt that there will be those who argue for the proscription of all organisations that might be supportive of violence and terrorism. The Government have not taken that option. We have decided to put forward in the Bill what we feel is a response to the problems faced in the council chambers. We recognise that there is an unacceptable situation at the moment, and we are determined to provide some means whereby those who feel affronted have some chance to do something about it.

Mr. Tony Benn: rose—

Mr. King: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but it will have to be the last time I give way, or I shall talk out the debate.

Mr. Benn: I am very grateful to the Secretary of State, but these are important questions that only he can clarify. If in the course of an election a candidate makes speeches which are not covered by the Bill, after he is elected an attack on the elected candidate is an attack on the electors who elected him. This is the problem to which the Secretary of State has not turned his mind. When we start interfering, either by a ban on broadcasting or through the provisions of the oath, we are interfering with those who elected the people concerned and not with the candidate. Will the Minister say something about that problem? He said that there is overwhelming support for the policy. If that is the case, such candidates will not be elected; if it is not, they will. That is the problem which arouses anxiety in the minds of many right hon. and hon. Members.

Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman's last point is a bit muddled, because the support is for the fact that candidates should be required to sign such a declaration. There seems to be general agreement that most people will sign it. The criticism from one side is that of course they will sign it and then they will not follow it. They will have to address that matter, but they will know at the time that they will be at risk of being found in breach of the declaration, and that that could lead to a five-year disqualification.
Although it is not a perfect measure, and although there are many criticisms of, for instance, the ban on direct access to the media, they are not shared by Ministers in the Irish Republic, nor by Mr. Conor Cruise O'Brien, who does not go around apologising for the measure that he brought in. He believes that it is a justified and sensible measure. I believe that that will prove to be the case in Northern Ireland, and that the measure, albeit with the difficulties, problems and reservations that people have, will prove to be far more effective than people think.
In the society that exists in Northern Ireland, it is necessary to respond to the genuine and deeply held grievances arising out of the sufferings there. The measure is often talked about in connection with Sinn Fein exclusively, but I am talking about both extremes—those on the Loyalist side as well as those on the Republican side. Violence and support of a twin-track policy, whatever it may be, are equally repulsive and offensive from whichever side they come.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield ( Mr. Benn) chastised me, saying that I would need to address the problem. I shall listen to what he says he would do to address the problem. I have addressed it and have rejected some other measures. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has spent more hours than he would probably care to reflect on discussing and consulting with a whole range of different people on what would be the right response. There is widespread recognition among many politically active people in Northern Ireland, and in the Churches, that a response is needed, and, while it is not perfect, they see this as a genuine atempt to reflect a concern that exists. I am very encouraged that that attitude and appreciation appear to be widely reflected among the people of Northern Ireland in both religious communities.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Taking it one step further, and assuming that a member of Sinn Fein signs that declaration, one of the arguments put forward by those who asked the Government to do something about this matter was that there appeared to be a double standard: that the right hon. Gentleman and his ministerial colleagues were asking Unionist elected representatives and others to sit down in council chambers with Sinn Fein, while they themselves refused to meet Sinn Fein elected representatives. If a Sinn Fein member signs the declaration, will the Secretary of State meet him?

Mr. King: No, we have no such proposals. If Sinn Fein were to repudiate violence, we would have to consider that. There is a clear distinction between not advocating or supporting violence and failing to repudiate it. I am aware that that was one of the criticisms in the representations made to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.
The House will have an opportunity fully to debate this measure not only today but in Committee. The


Government believe that it is an appropriate response to circumstances that cause great offence and grievance. In no sense does it seek to exclude from elected office anyone who wishes to pursue the democratic path in the way in which all hon. Members expect—without violence, intimidation or murder as the aid and adjunct to a campaign. We offer the opportunity for all to stand. We merely require that, if elected, the candidate will observe the standards for which the House has stood for centuries. That is the basis on which we put forward the Bill, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
That this House, whilst welcoming the proposals to extend the franchise in Local Government elections in Northern Ireland, declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which is unnecessary because incitement to violence and displays of support for terrorism are already criminal offences; which will increase sectarian conflict in Local Government; which will assist the cause of the supporters of violence; which will place the judiciary in an invidious position, and which does nothing to encourage confidence in the operation of Local Government in Northern Ireland or to heal the divisions in that society.
I shall not follow the introduction of the Secretary of State, not because I concede his argument but because we should consider the Bill and its penicious effects.
The Labour party welcomes the proposals to end the anomalies in the electoral register. Unfortunately, that is the only part of the Bill to which my party can give its support. The central issue is the declaration against violence, to which I shall devote my remarks.
The case against this legislation has been made so vigorously that I am surprised the Government have been foolish enough to introduce it:
democracies have to be careful in seeking to defend their democracy by not adopting means which play into the hands of terrorists, and therefore, I think we should seek to derogate as little as possible from the normal standards of justice and government which we would normally apply … There are always people who will come forward and seek to persuade law enforcement agencies of governments that there are short cuts to solving terrorist problems; that there is no need to be moderate, civilised and restrained in our response. However briskly, forcefully and determinedly one might have to respond to particular situations, I do think those other qualities should not be forgotten, lest they simply increase the size of the sea within which the terrorist fish can swim … do not try to take short cuts with the law in order to produce short-term results that may cause longer-term problems. Do not neglect the task of tackling the real grievances which may provide the terrorist with some of his support in the community".
The Government apparently do not share that point of view. It was put forward most eloquently and effectively by the hon. Member who probably knows more about countering terrorism and who has served longer in Northern Ireland than anyone else—the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott). All those words came from a Northern Ireland information service handout of a speech made by the hon. Gentleman in 1986. That was the background against which the Government started again after the last election, but they have cut themselves off from such a policy by a series of measures over the past six months. This measure is perhaps one of the most regrettable. It is a disappointment to all fair-minded men

that the Government, reacting to the Prime Minister's pressures, have not listened to the words of wisdom of the hon. Member for Chelsea.
The Bill does not address itself to the problem of reducing the size of the sea in which the terrorist swims. It does not even place the sandbags in the way of the terrorist tide, nor does it even fence off the sea with barbed wire, which might catch the odd terrorist minnow. It simply strings a white tape along the edge of the water, which is insufficient to dry the swamps in which the paramilitaries feed.
The Labour party declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill for several reasons. It is misconceived and unnecessary, does nothing to eradicate violence, is futile, will strengthen the paramilitary case and it is apparent that it will have quite unintended consequences that the Government have equally obviously failed to consider.
The Secretary of State's case for the Bill rests on two assumptions—that the presence of Sinn Fein in local government is alone responsible for the disruption of local authority business, and that its presence is offensive to other councillors and the citizens of Northern Ireland. On the first point, the Secretary of State has misled himself. The greatest disruption in council chambers has been as a result of the Unionist campaign against the Anglo-Irish Agreement, not the presence of Sinn Fein. Some 20 of the 21 district councils made representations in favour of these proposals to the Under-Secretary. Of those 20 councils, 15 experienced some disruption as part of a protest campaign against the Anglo-Irish Agreement; that did not concern the presence of Sinn Fein.
Only six councils signed the declaration of fair employment embodied in the current fair employment legislation; 14 did not sign, yet it is mainly those siren voices—those local councils that were so upset at sitting down with Sinn Fein—who would so insult their fellow citizens that they would not sign fair employment declarations and took part in a campaign of disruption against the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The Secretary of State's first point falls on that count.

Mr. Brazier: As a Catholic, I am most concerned about fair employment in Northern Ireland, as is the right hon. Member. It is important to make progress, but the considerable progress made over the past few years has not led to a fall in terrorist violence. Something else must be done, and the House looks forward to hearing the right hon. Gentleman's views.

Mr. McNamara: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on promoting me to the Privy Council; he must tell his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about that. I am protesting not as a Catholic, but as a citizen. Fair employment is not a question of Catholics or Protestants, but of human rights.
I agree with the Minister that the presence of Sinn Fein gives rise to strong and understandable feelings of revulsion and outrage. As we know—the Prime Minister has often told us so, especially with regard to apartheid —such strong emotions are not a rational basis for policy decisions. The argument must be considered in greater detail. One must ask why Sinn Fein participation arouses such anger. It is because it supports a campaign of violence by the IRA. If we are serious about ending the anger, we


must be serious about ending the violence. The Bill simply suggests that the underlying problem will go away if it is concealed from view.
The Bill does nothing to hinder the IRA. It will do nothing to put those who employ violence behind bars. It will not cut off the flow of arms or lead to their seizure. It attempts to limit the expression of support for paramilitaries, but that is already a criminal offence, which is why we believe that the Bill is unnecessary. There are a battery of powers in the criminal law that deal with the expression of support for violence. Section 21 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and section 9 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1987 make it an offence to invite or solicit support for proscribed organisations. Is that not what the declaration is supposed to be about?
Article 9 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 makes it an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour if it is likely that hatred or fear will be aroused. Is that not what the declaration is about? These powers are available to the authorities now, but we are asked to permit action to be taken against people for what they are, rather than for what they do. This involves a reversal of policies that have been followed since the phasing out of internment and the end of special category status in the mid-1970s.
The Bill is also futile. Oaths and declarations were abolished in 1973. The decision was taken with the support of the Government and Opposition of the day. Among the various reasons was one put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), who said:
I take leave to doubt whether the Act ever achieved its purpose. An oath excludes, by its nature, only the scrupulous and honest …
Those who are prepared to take an oath in which they do not necessarily believe … will not be excluded by the requirement of the oath … this requirement operates chiefly as a rather purposeless irritant."—[Official Report, 17 April 1973; Vol. 855, c. 423.]
The argument was unanswerable at the time; it remains unanswerable now. As we have seen, Sinn Fein has already announced its intention to sign the declaration.
The Bill strengthens the position of the paramilitaries. The real beneficiaries of the Bill will be those whom it seeks to defeat. That has been an unfortunate trait of the Government's policy over the past six months. Sinn Fein will be able to portray itself as the only party that the Government feel is a serious threat to their ability to rule in Northern Ireland. This is a major moral and political boost to that party. One has only to look at the statements issued by Sinn Fein since the declaration was first mooted to see the ill-conceived satisfaction with which its leaders welcome the Bill. My party is not prepared to support a Bill that gives such comfort to the supporters of the paramilitaries.
Under the headline "Thatcher's Crackdown will Fail" in Republican News of 24 November, an article points out that the Bill is
an admission that Britain cannot crush Sinn Fein support but will still try to stop the Nationalist people choosing who will represent them … Thatcher is introducing these latest laws precisely because of the political effectiveness of Sinn Fein … In her own pig-headed, jackboot way she is letting us know that we have been adopting the right tactics and strategy!
That is how Sinn Fein sees it.
If one were tempted to dismiss this simply as idle rhetoric, one need only look at the effect of the original proposals put forward in the consultative document on voting behaviour. Shortly after the paper was published, Sinn Fein trounced its rivals in two Belfast city council by-elections, increasing its share of the first preference vote from 55 per cent. to 63·6 per cent. in one case—a seat that it was expected to win—and from 43 per cent. to 49·8 per cent. in the other—a seat that it was expected to lose to the SDLP. What clearer warning could have been given to the Government to think again? The Bill is a blow, not against the supporters of the paramilitaries but against constitutional Nationalists. It seems an insult to my hon. Friends in the SDLP, who have been fighting violence on the hustings in a democratic manner for the past 20 years, to say to them, "If you are to stand for election in local government, you must sign this declaration."
The Bill is particularly ironic at a time when my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and his party have pitilessly exposed the bankruptcy of Sinn Fein and its ideas and methods. For the Government to suggest that the Bill, which is so welcomed by those whom it is designed to combat, is a serious contribution to the fight against the paramilitaries defies all logic. Sinn Fein and the IRA have dared the Government to take such a step and the Government have been foolish enough to take the bait.
Why do the Bill's legitimate targets enjoy the Government's predicament so openly and thoroughly? They recognise, where the Government do not, the advantages that it offers them. Simply by forcing the Government to introduce a Bill directed at Sinn Fein, the paramilitaries have succeeded in obliging the authorities to place the elected members of their organisation on a pedestal and not in the dock. This is a morale booster for the convinced supporter of the IRA or for the experienced gunman, but, more seriously, it will undermine confidence in the authorities among those tens of thousands of people whose attitude towards the Republican movement wavers between sympathy and disgust.
What, these people will ask, do the Government have to hide? Why do they seek to change the electoral rules because they do not like the outcome? What is the point of voting? The old slogan, "If voting could change anything, they would make it illegal," will win converts to the Bill if we adopt it. I cannot think of any better way to damage the credibility of the democratic process. That will be the effect of using the electoral rather than the criminal law in the fight against the paramilitaries. The west Belfast by-election results must be a constant reminder to us all.
Sinn Fein will take comfort from another aspect of the measure. If a Sinn Fein member is disqualified, his party will receive a propaganda bonus. When the by-election takes place, Sinn Fein cannot lose, because there will be one of two results. In electoral districts where the councillor was elected at an early stage of the count, another member of his party is likely to be elected, probably with an increased majority, thereby thumbing the party's nose at the legislation. Where the disqualified councillor was elected at a more advanced stage of the count, the seat will probably be lost. I leave it to hon. Members to ponder which scenario would have the most damaging effect on the democratic process: the first, because the Bill was shown to be useless, or the second, because it gave a continuous argument that the rules had been changed and the goal posts moved.


The Bill is also discriminatory. Its damaging effects are compounded by the fact that its target is essentially those who are misleadingly called "Republican" paramilitaries. As the list of proscribed organisations is discriminatory, there is a major inconsistency in the Government's position. Unlike the situation with the broadcasting restrictions, the UDA is not covered, so we have the ludicrous position where it will not be possible to support the UDA on television but all too possible to support it in the council chambers.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has read the new declaration. Specifically, under schedule 2 it states:
I will not by word or deed express support for or approval of—
(a) any organisation"—
and so on—
(b) acts of terrorism (that is to say, violence for political ends) connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland.
Surely the hon. Gentleman realises that we added paragraph (b) to ensure that the measure was even-handed and covered both sides.

Mr. McNamara: It is not as even-handed as the hon. Gentleman thinks.
I turn to the unintended consequences of the Bill. Most obviously, the Government seem to have forgotten the second of the two reasons why oaths and declarations were prohibited 15 years ago. That is all the more surprising when one considers that among those voting in favour of the abolition of the oaths one finds the names of three future Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, including the present incumbent.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman has been talking about by-elections as though they were going to be exactly the same as proportional representation elections. Has he studied the number of district electoral areas in Northern Ireland in which the IRA-Sinn Fein element had a majority of the Nationalist vote?

Mr. McNamara: The point of my examples was that the IRA did not have a majority of the Nationalist vote but won the by-election.
I turn to the sub-plot underlying this matter. For us in Great Britain, the requirement to sign a declaration eschewing the use of violence for political ends may appear to be the height of reason, but in the overheated atmosphere of Northern Ireland this takes on connotations which are not immediately visible to us in the House. The problem which we face is not whether the declaration is reasonable in itself, nor whether the wording is reasonable, but its very existence.
The existence of almost any declaration will create suspicion and unease in Northern Ireland. It smacks of the bad old days of Stormont and discrimination, where oaths and declarations were used to maintain the Nationalist population in a state of second-class citizenship. Whether we like it or not, this is the way in which the Bill will be perceived in Northern Ireland and was the reason why the Cameron commission was so strong in recommending the abolition of oaths and declarations.
Even more important, there is a further unintended consequence; that is the way in which the Bill will intensify

sectarianism in the council chambers. The Bill is an attempt to strike a blow against Sinn Fein, but it is not a well-directed sniper shot; rather, it is a careless blast of buckshot. It is already apparent that many district councils have descended into chaos following the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. With this Bill, they will become even more of a sectarian bear pit because, in several councils, the behaviour of members, understandable though it might be, clearly shows that they have fallen into the trap set for them by Sinn Fein. They have allowed Sinn Fein to appear to be the injured party with their opponents cast as the real exponents of violence.
I can understand the emotions that inspire such behaviour, but, with this Bill, things will be even worse. Councillors will have even less incentive to attempt to counter the Sinn Fein case by reason, turning instead to the law. Local authorities will be paralysed, as there will be constant efforts to goad councillors into violating the declaration. There will be countless actions to disbar councillors and constant challenges to establish exactly what the declaration means.
That last point is of particular significance. What does the declaration mean? As it stands, there will be efforts to disbar Sinn Fein councillors, but its activists have, in the past, shown themselves sufficiently sophisticated to be able to circumvent the declaration. For instance, it does not take much imagination to predict Mark Antony style perorations, such as "I support the right of the South African people to enter into armed struggle to secure their freedom. I support the right of the Afghan people to enter into armed struggle to secure their freedom. I support the right of all freedom-loving people to fight to secure their freedom." Does that fall within or without the bar?
Those concerns are accentuated by the vagueness of the terms of the declaration.

Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman does not appear to be answering the point that I put to him. If he looks at clause 6(2), he will see that it states that
For the purposes of subsection (1) above a person shall be taken to express support for, or approval of, any matter if his words or actions could reasonably be understood as expressing support for, or approval of, it.

Mr. McNamara: What does the Minister mean by that? If I say that I support all freedom-loving people in their fight, is the Minister saying that freedom does not exist in Northern Ireland? Are we saying that we shall get a person because he opposes apartheid? That is farcical and the Minister knows it.
Those concerns are accentuated by the vagueness of the terms of the declaration itself. According to clause 6(2), to which the Minister referred, the grounds for disqualification are the use of words or behaviour which "could reasonably be understood" to be violations of the declaration, but what does that mean? In effect, we are being asked to abdicate our responsibility to the courts and to offer a poisoned chalice to the courts. I am also concerned that extra-territorial effect of clause 6(3) constitutes a major departure in international law, which is likely to further frustrate Britain's international reputation because a person can now be "done", not for what he says in the British Isles, but for what he says in Timbuktu, Toronto or Washington.
Only last week, the European Court of Human Rights once again found against the Government in respect of the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974. That


will lead to yet another challenge. It is open to dispute whether a case under article 9 of the convention, which protects freedom of expression, would succeed, but a case under article 3 of the first protocol, which deals with free elections, would appear to stand a high degree of success. 1 do not wish to see this country dragged through the courts again.
To make matters worse, the matter of enforcement proposed by the Government is perhaps the worst aspect of the Bill. By placing the onus on councils, councillors and individual citizens to take action, it will intensify the conflict in local government, possibly also setting them up as targets. I see from The Daily Telegraph of 25 November that the Minister justifies this provision in terms of the need to protect the impartiality of the Law Officers. I wish that the Government had displayed a similar concern in the Stalker affair. We cannot protect that which is not perceived to exist in Northern Ireland.
It is a cowardly excuse because, if the evidence is there, action could and should be taken under the emergency powers legislation dealing with inciting anyone to support violence. However, the Government are saying no and are doing that deliberately because they know that the same standard of evidence is not required in a civil action as in a criminal action. That again shows the Bill to be the farce that it is. The Government have insufficient confidence in their own measures to take responsibility for its enforcement.
The court might well be cluttered up with applications against councillors of all persuasions. Many of those applications may be dismissed out of hand, but not all applications against Unionist councillors will be considered vexatious. Many councillors have taken part in paramilitary displays or have issued bloodthirsty calls to illegal and armed resistance against the decisions of this Parliament.
For example, in an interview shortly before the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Councillor Ivan Foster of Fermanagh council, former deputy leader of the Democratic Unionist party and commander of that party's paramilitary wing, the Third Force, warned that he and his supporters would resist the decisions of this Parliament. He said:
I know how to use a gun. There's no use carrying a gun unless you know how to use it. There's no use carrying a gun if you don't intend to use it.
Why will the Government not take responsibility, under the provisions of this Bill, to seek to disbar a person who says such a thing?
Even more outrageous was the threat to Ulsterbus and its staff, issued in June 1985, by Councillor Sammy Wilson, a leading member of the DUP and recent lord mayor of Belfast. When Ulsterbus refused to provide transport to a demonstration in Castlewellan, which ended in violence, Mr. Wilson announced:
It now seems that the Northern Ireland office has enlisted not only the RUC but the transport industry in its offensive against the Unionist population. Such a move can place Ulsterbus vehicles and drivers in an extremely vulnerable position.
However, no action was taken on that. Under the provisions of the Bill, will action be taken in future on something like that?

Mr. David Lightbown (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): It is too vague.

Mr. McNamara: Members of the Transport and General Workers Union, driving buses in Northern Ireland, know that it is a real threat to their security because they have seen what has happened to the buses.
The Ulster Resistance Movement is designed to intimidate this House. That movement is organised and dressed on paramilitary lines. Prominent members of this House were present at the foundation of that movement, including the leader and deputy leader of the Democratic Unionist party and the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker), and took part in various threatening marches around the Province. Within the last month, a large cache of arms was found in Armagh, accompanied by Ulster Resistance uniforms, including the red beret that the hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) were proud to wear.
Many of us in this House still remember the disgraceful scenes that took place on the Loyalist day of action in March 1986. Unionist councillors played an active role in attempts to instigate violence and to disrupt normal life in the Province.
The list of such activities is endless. I shall limit myself to one further example, that of the hon. Member for Belfast, East, who is also a member of Castlereagh council. The hon. Gentleman's prediliction for taking part in paramilitary displays is not as well known in this House as it is in Northern Ireland. He took part in a parade in Portadown, dressed in paramilitary style. In Enniskillen, he announced that the organisation—Ulster Resistance— had commenced paramilitary training. He did not confine his activities to the Province. His invasion of Clontibret in County Monaghan led to his conviction before the special criminal court.
Although I am sure that the House will agree that such episodes are to be deplored, that is not the primary purpose in bringing those facts to light; it is to bring to the attention of the House the fact that large sections of both communities have an ambiguous attitude towards the use of violence. What is more, in the context of this Bill, what the hon. Member for Belfast, East did would presumably prevent him standing for election as a member of his local council—of which he is at present a member—for five years, but it would not prevent him standing for election as a Member of this House or as a member of the European Parliament. Is that not hypocrisy? It is one rule for local government elections in Northern Ireland and another for this place and the European Parliament. That is why the Opposition are not prepared to accept the Bill.
There are two types of violence in Northern Ireland. First, there is the violence of those who seek to alter the constitutional status of Northern Ireland through force—the Republican paramilitaries. Secondly, there is the violence of the paramilitaries who seek, at best, to maintain the status quo or, at worst, to turn the clock back to the Northern Ireland of the pre-civil rights era—Protestant resistance. That is recognised by the authorities, but not by the Bill.
Under clause 6(a)(ii) it would be possible to make a speech in support of Loyalist organisations such as the UDA, the Third Force and Ulster Resistance, provided that person did not support specified acts of terrorism. It states that he would be in breach if he expressed approval of
acts of terrorism (that is to say, violence for political ends) connected with Northern Ireland.


Speeches can be made in general about any sort of violent organisation in Northern Ireland. It will be right and proper for divisional commanders to prepare, to march and to wear paramilitary uniform because their organisations are not proscribed and they cannot be connected to any specific act of terrorism. The Government surely cannot expect a court to say that if a person does not seek to defend a particular act of terrorism, that should be taken to be a connection with that act. That would be too much of a burden for the courts.
That same restriction does not apply to broadcasting because other organisations are not proscribed. A person can appear on television and openly support Protestant Resistance, Third Force or any other Nationalist offshoot that might pop up and is not proscribed—but not under this legislation. It does not add up.
I have sought to show that the Bill will affect politicians from both sides of the community and that it will lead to further sectarian divisions. If it does not, it will appear to be one-sided. We cannot tell what will happen because so much has been left to the discretion of the courts. Instead of dealing with the roots of violence and sectarianism, the Bill will further divide the communities as each side tries to equalise the score in the disqualification league table. The Secretary of State reminds me of Flan O'Brien's
determined chairmen who convert disorder into bedlam.
The Bill is an attempt by the Government to save the people of Northern Ireland from themselves. It may be deplorable that certain malevolent types emerge victorious from a secret ballot, but that is reality. The answer is to win the argument with their electorate, not to drive their supporters completely out of the political process. By requiring the judiciary to arbitrate between the conflicting factions, to decide who can serve on local authorities, and to define the limits of political debate in Northern Ireland, the Government are asking the state to substitute itself for the electorate. That will obviously damage public confidence in the judicial system.
The Bill does not require judges to decide specific cases on the basis of commonly held principles—it is an attempt to make them decide what those standards should be. That is a task for the elected representatives of the people and the people themselves. There are no short cuts. Not content with militarising the judicial process—as the Government have done under the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order—they are now intent on politicising the judges as well. The beneficiaries of that can only be the paramilitaries. For that reason, the Opposition will vote against Second Reading.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Before I begin my remarks on the content of the Bill, I want to respond to some of the comments of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) who threw together some partial pieces of information, dangled them in front of the House and expected us to reach a conclusion on that brief information.
The hon. Gentleman described councillor Ivan Foster as a former deputy leader of the DUP, but Mr. Foster has never been the party's deputy leader and he is not a councillor. The hon. Gentleman said that Mr. Foster had

said that he had a gun, that he knew how to use it and that no one should carry a gun unless he was prepared to use it. I, too, could make such remarks. Like Mr. Foster, I legally hold a weapon. If Mr. Foster were not prepared to use a gun, and if the authorities did not expect him to be able to use it, he should not have been given permission to hold one. If hon. Members knew where Mr. Foster lived, they would understand why he needs a weapon to protect his life and the lives of his family. There is nothing in the remarks of the former lord mayor of Belfast to which anyone could take offence, and there is nothing in them that needs to be answered.
The hon. Gentleman made wild remarks about me. He said that I appeared at Portadown in paramilitary uniform. That demonstrates his wild imagination. I was wearing a three-piece suit, on top of which I wore a normal blue overcoat. I was wearing a beret, and I shall tell the House why. The Chief Constable issued an edict that anyone who wore a beret would be considered to be in paramilitary uniform and subject to certain laws. I disagreed with that edict and said that boy scouts and girl guides would have to be careful about what they wore to their gatherings. The edict was absolute nonsense. I was merely thumbing my nose, as were others, at the Chief Constable.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the police recently uncovering arms in Northern Ireland and said, as is widely accepted in Northern Ireland, that the weapons belonged to the Ulster Resistance. The security forces have no information to substantiate that claim. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the weapons were found alongside Ulster Resistance uniforms. That is not true. The Ulster Resistance uniforms and berets were handed back to its members after being taken by the Royal Ulster Constabulary. They were not found with the guns that were displayed.

Mr. Mallon: In the interests of accuracy, would the hon. Gentleman like me to tell him the name of the person involved, whose house is exactly half a mile from where I live? I assure the hon. Gentleman that those uniforms were found with the guns at that house.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the House to discuss a matter that is before the courts? The person charged was a Mr. Spratt, whom I know very well. He was not charged with having guns or with being a member of the Ulster Resistance—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman appears to be committing the same offence as that about which he is complaining. If it is the case—and I am not aware of it—that ther person to whom reference has been made is the subject of charges laid before the court, it would be wrong for the House to discuss that because it would be sub judice.

Mr. Robinson: I hear your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I assure the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) that if he listens carefully to the prosecution evidence when the case comes before the courts he will find that I am right and he is wrong.—Interruption.] I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes.
A letter from the Minister dated 24 November shows the purpose behind the Bill. It shows that there are difficulties in local government as a result of the presence


in council chambers of elected representatives whose declared support for terrorist violence is incompatible with the democratic process. That is of great concern not only to elected representatives of the Unionist community but to other elected representatives and to other representatives of the community as a whole.
I should have thought that no one could have faulted the Government for taking account of those real concerns and attempting to do something about them. Many councillors in Northern Ireland have expressed their concern to the Secretary of State and others, and have asked the Secretary of State to bring forward a measure to deal with the matter. I should be the last person who could fault them for that. I have some strictures to apply, but they certainly do not relate to the basis and purpose of the legislation.
Again, for the sake of accuracy, I inform the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, that before the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed, as a result of the presence of Sinn Fein members there were boycotts and adjournments of local government. Such action started directly after the May elections and before the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed. I say that just in case the hon. Gentleman is the least bit interested in accuracy, although his speech showed that he had no great concern for it.
In his letter to elected representatives forwarding a copy of the Bill, the Secretary of State properly showed the nature and importance of the measure. The problem of security and violence in Northern Ireland is well known to the House. More than 2,750 people have been butchered as a result of the terrorist campaign. Few families in Northern Ireland have not suffered as a consequence, if not directly by a member of their family being killed, certainly by a friend or close relative being butchered. That violence has transcended the religious and political divides in Northern Ireland. It is a matter of concern for everyone.
I must agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North—this measure will not address that problem, and it is unlikely that people will die as a result of the measure. However, I do not believe that the real purpose of the measure is to deal with security. If it is to do anything, it is to clean up the democratic process. If that is its purpose, it should be welcomed by the House.
There are some outstanding examples of the hypocrisy which pertains in democracy in Northern Ireland. For instance, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), in the council of Londonderry, a Sinn Fein member was returned who had previously been before the courts for being a part of the bombing team who blew up the council offices. Sinn Fein members who gloried in the death of district councillors are members of the self-same councils. No one can suggest that it is a pleasant task for people who believe in the democratic process to sit in council chambers with people who have taken that kind of action and expressed those views.
In many ways, the Secretary of State gave away the weakness of the measure when he responded to my earlier intervention about the double standard perceived by many Unionists—that the Secretary of State would encourage Unionists calmly and peacefully to take part in council debates with members of Sinn Fein, while he and his colleagues would hold them at bargepole length and ensure that they are not allowed into the Northern Ireland Office at Stormont castle.
In response to views that were expressed by Opposition Members from a sedentary position, the Secretary of State said that no repudiation of violence is included in the declaration. The truth is that the declaration which appears in the Minister's letter, the explanatory notes, the Secretary of State's remarks in the House and in the Bill itself, and which purports to be a declaration against terrorism, is not a declaration against terrorism. One does not need to declare oneself opposed to a proscribed organisation. That is not included in the delaration in the Bill. If it is a declaration against anything, it is a declaration against publicly announcing support for terrorism. If it were the former, I should be happier to give full and whole-hearted support to the measure. That is the weakness of the legislation—that it is not what it purports to be.
It is hypocritical for the Government to suggest to Unionist councillors that, even with this piece of legislation helping the situation to whatever extent it may, they should calmly and rationally debate local government issues with members of Sinn Fein while the Secretary of State and his Ministers refuse to do that self-same thing about self-same issues. I urge the Secretary of State to treat elected representatives in Northern Ireland as he would wish to be treated. If Sinn Fein members are unclean for Stormont castle, they should be considered unclean for council chambers in Northern Ireland.
The answer—the Government cannot dodge it—must be the proscription of the organisation concerned. If the Secretary of State would consider with me for a moment the effect that that would have on Northern Ireland, he would see that there would be many beneficial side-effects. For the first time, the people of Northern Ireland would see determination and resolve on the part of the Government to take any measure, no matter how unpopular it would be with some hon. Members. They would see that the Government are prepared to take the necessary action to make it clear to the community that there is no place in our council chambers for terrorists or supporters of terrorists.
Let us be clear about what Sinn Fein is. It is not simply a support organisation for the Provisional IRA. It is an integral part of the Provisional IRA. Its constitutional and organisational structure demonstrates that Sinn Fein councillors are directly under the control of local IRA commanders. That is clear evidence that Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA are one and the same entity. If the Secretary of State does not want to take my word for that, he can look up the Baker report on terrorism, in which it was stated that that is the position. The report almost urges the proscription of that organisation.
I have some sympathy—certainly on an academic level —with the view of a Labour Secretary of State who said that, if we could encourage people away from violence and into the political process, we should do so. It was on that basis that de-proscription took place. That Secretary of State considered that, if Sinn Fein were allowed to grow as a political party, its representatives and councillors would move away from the spoils of violence towards the political process, thereby undermining the Provisional IRA and, obviously, reducing violence in Northern Ireland. Academically, many people could embrace that argument, but it has not happened. The direct opposite has happened. The political process has been used to bolster the Provisional IRA's terrorist campaign.


The quotation that the present Secretary of State used in his remarks clearly shows that the Government see it as a step-by-step parallel process, pushing the political wing along with the military wing of the Provisional IRA—the ballot paper and the Armalite policy. It is totally inconsistent—indeed, it is absurd—to continue to allow people who are clearly identified with a terrorist organisation to parade in council chambers as though they were interested in the day-to-day welfare of their electorate. Instead of a strong Bill that would have given life to the Government's rhetoric, we have a limp, Jukewarm, lifeless measure that is neither fish nor fowl. At its heart is the declaration which does not live up to its title. My colleagues will seek to amend it so that it becomes a declaration against terrorism and I trust that there will be some opportunity at a later stage to do that.
Clause 6(1)(b) shows the whole purpose behind the declaration against terrorism. The declaration, which should be a declaration against support for terrorism, will be breached if a person supports a proscribed organisation or terrorist act
(i) at a public meeting, or
(ii) knowing, or in such circumstances that he can reasonably be expected to know, that the fact that he has made that expression of support or approval is likely to become known to the public.
That means that the Government do not object to a person expressing privately by word or deed his support for a terrorist organisation—that is consistent with membership of a local government authority in Northern Ireland. It is only when a person steps into the public arena and shows his support for that organisation that he runs foul of this legislation.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) said that some members of Sinn Fein may be prepared to sign this declaration. Of course they will be. There is no reason why they should not. Without being dishonest in the least, a gunman or bomber could sign that declaration. It does not ask him not to bomb or shoot again. It asks him only not to support that sort of activity publicly. Therefore, Sinn Fein members will find no difficulty in signing the declaration.
The declaration takes us only one step on and, like many hon. Members, I believe that Sinn Fein members will sign it. Sinn Fein members are elected to district councils and, careful and well trained though they may be in getting round legal niceties, with the passage of time one or another is likely to offend under this legislation and say something that will give rise to a court case.
Who will take the action? It will not be the Director of Public Prosecutions, because it is not to be considered a criminal matter. I should be interested to hear from the Minister where the support came from for dealing with this as a civil matter. I have not heard of any great pressure on the Government or the Minister to treat this as a civil matter. I do not necessarily object to it being dealt with either as a criminal or civil case—if the DPP declines to take a case, I am certainly in favour of civil recourse—but I cannot understand why the DPP should not have a role. If the DPP is not to be given a role, we had better be clear what we are asking local government representatives and local electors to do—we are asking them to sign their own death warrants.
The first case will be the test case. The first person to take a case against a Sinn Fein councillor had better keep his head down, because Sinn Fein will want to dissuade anyone else from following that path. That is not to say that there are not people with sufficient backbone to stand up to the PIRA and Sinn Fein and take that action, but why is it necessary for them to do so when there is not only the option of this being a criminal matter, but other options?

Mr. Edward Leigh: Is that not why there is provision for an entire council to take action?

Mr. Robinson: It is likely that Sinn Fein representatives will be elected in predominantly Nationalist areas. That means that we shall be talking about councils such as Omagh, Strabane and perhaps Londonderry, where there is a Nationalist majority. It is unlikely that a council with a Nationalist majority will take any court action against a Sinn Fein member for remarks that he or she may make. Other councils will have great difficulty in taking such action. A Belfast council, for example, cannot take such action against a councillor from Omagh or Strabane who makes such a remark.

Mr. Leigh: Surely some representatives can take action. It need not be the entire council.

Mr. Robinson: Yes, but they fall back into the category of people who are putting their lives on the line. Many will be prepared to do that. I am not suggesting that because the Government have specified these categories no one will take such action—some will—but by specifying only these categories the Government are putting the lives of elected representatives and others in danger.
Both Unionist parties asked the Government to consider proscription and certainly to make this a criminal offence and therefore a matter which could be pursued by the DPP. If the Government are not prepared to do that, they must seriously consider setting up a body which can be regarded as a commission. In that way, people who have a complaint about the remarks of an elected representative can take it to that body, which will be sufficiently financed by the Government to provide the legal advice necessary to institute a prosecution and which will have the authority to take any further action in accordance with this legislation. It is far easier to ask people who live in safer areas of the Province to take this sort of stand than to leave it to those who are necessarily in the front line. I urge the Government to consider those aspects in Committee.
As a district council can bring an action against a council representative for his views, why did the Minister exclude the Assembly from taking such an action against an Assembly Member for his remarks? I should have thought that the same entitlement would have fallen on the Assembly. I know that the Assembly is not of immediate concern because it is not an immediate prospect, but I should like to have the Government's thinking on that.
Clause 6(4) makes it clear that an Assembly Member who makes such remarks in the Northern Ireland Assembly will not be protected by the privilege of that Assembly. Does that mean that an elected representative in this House would be protected by the privilege of this House? Are elected representatives from Northern Ireland who make such remarks in this House in a special category


in that they cannot be caught under this legislation? If I were the creature that the Front Bench Opposition spokesman thinks I am and wished to make a remark which would offend under this legislation, all that I would have to do is make the remark in this House—then nobody could do a thing about it because the privilege of this House would protect me.
My colleagues and I feel that while this legislation started out for the right purpose, it has been weakened considerably.

Mr. William Ross: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of who may bring a case, will he draw attention to the sheer cost of bringing such a case? Although the IRA and its mouthpiece, Sinn Fein, will always claim not to recognise British courts, we can be sure that they will recognise British courts for this. The first test case will probably end up in the other place and cost a huge sum. An individual bringing such a case may have means such as to place him outside the legal aid provisions and thus be unable to afford to do so. Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Minister who is liable to pay if a council loses the case? That will be fairly contentious because of the wording of the legislation. Moreover, the Government are continually trying to cut the money that councils can spend and the purposes on which they can spend it.

Mr. Robinson: The cost, as the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) suggested, could be considerable. The Secretary of State has said in the explanatory notes and in the Bill itself that legal aid will be available, but what percentage of councillors will be eligible for legal aid? Will a councillor who is entitled to bring an action under the Bill also be eligible for legal aid? The Secretary of State may say that a council can bring an action as a legitimate item of expenditure, but if such an action failed, the local government auditor might say at the end of the financial year that the council's action had been frivolous and that there should be a surcharge as a result. That would be a disincentive to many councillors who might otherwise consider bringing an action.
That is why I have suggested that, if the Government want to get to grips with the matter, there should be a body funded by the Government to bring such actions. It would be in a better financial position to do so, it could stand up better to IRA terrorism and it would be better equipped to obtain the necessary legal advice to pursue the case. The question of finance is important.
I suspect—although I have no firm proof of this—that the Government will resist the idea that the matter should be dealt with through criminal prosecution and that it will be left to civil action. The Government have ducked out and left others to carry on the front-line work. The Bill should be strengthened. In its present form, it will be ineffective and unlikely to have more than a marginal impact on local government. I am disappointed in the Bill, but I am prepared to ensure that amendments are tabled in Committee by myself and by other hon. Members from Northern Ireland and I hope that there will be a blood transfusion to give the Bill more life, vitality and strength.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I am delighted that this matter is being dealt with through a Bill and not, as is generally the case, by an order that applies to Northern Ireland. That is a relief.
To understand why the Bill is necessary, one should consider the motives of local government councillors before the 1985 local government elections. At that time, district and borough councillors felt that it was their public duty to serve the local community, even though that meant more kicks than ha'pence—that is, roughly translated, more criticism than salary. Although it was felt—and still is—that councillors had little power, there was generally a surplus of candidates who were anxious to use their expertise, such as business men, teachers, trade unionists and farmers. They wanted to make a contribution to the local administration.
I speak from personal experience, as I have met many local councillors. In May 1981, I was elected to the Newtownabbey borough council and, with 20 other councillors, I began to look after a limited number of responsibilities for the area in which I was born. As the House has heard before, those responsibilities were, basically, emptying bins, providing recreation facilities and burying the dead—not necessarily in that order.
We also had a consultative role in a number of other matters, but we quickly became aware that consultation was usually another word for confirming departmental decisions that the council had no power to change. Nevertheless, because of the good personal relationships between councillors, it was an enjoyable and instructive experience. In spite of our frustration about the absence of power, the council, as a corporate body, carried out its functions with good humour and togetherness, overcoming differing party views and generally reaching decisions which were for the good of the whole community.
That happy state of affairs lasted until 9 May 1985 when, because of my membership of the House, I gave up my council seat to concentrate on my parliamentary duties, thus making way for another candidate to gain valuable experience as a public representative. I took my decision with great regret because of the friendships that I had formed with councillors from all parties. I know that I should have had a similar experience in most local councils in Northern Ireland.
Little did I realise the anger, aggravation, disgust, heartache and high blood pressure that I was to be spared by that decision. In May 1985, seven months before the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, Sinn Fein candidates stood in local authority elections for the first time since the present troubles began. Of its 59 elected councillors, no fewer than 11 had previously served prison sentences for terrorists crimes. That is hardly surprising when one remembers what the then director of Sinn Fein publicity said during its party conference in 1981—to which the Secretary of State has already referred. Danny Morrison, in addressing the cheering delegates, said:
Who here really believes that we can win the war through the ballot box? But will anyone here object if, with a ballot paper in this hand and an Armalite in this hand, we take power in Ireland?
Can anyone be surprised that the arrival of such people in council chambers caused widespread revulsion and apprehension? The vast majority of councillors, regardless of political views, wholly reject violence.
There is no doubt that the running of the 26 district councils in Northern Ireland has been seriously put at risk by the presence of Sinn Fein in 16 of them. That has had a knock-on effect on the other councils. The Ulster Unionist party fully understands and sympathises with the many decent and moderate councillors who have despaired and who have seriously considered resignation because of the presence of Sinn Fein on the councils since May 1985.
But an even more serious situation has developed among the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. There is a great risk that unless the Bill is effective enough to satisfy the demands of those decent and moderate citizens upon whom our democracy depends, they will not even consider running for office in the 1989 local government elections. That is an extremely dangerous situation that could have long-term effects for the United Kingdom as a whole, and for Northern Ireland in particular.
We are all well aware of how much local councils depend on attracting able people to run their affairs in a balanced and democratic way. We need young men and women to start their political careers in local government, perhaps eventually ending up in this House. Unfortunately, it is becoming more and more difficult to attract such people into public service while the shadow of the gun and the terrorist hangs over council chambers.
This problem could not continue to be ignored by the Government. When the Secretary of State issued his discussion paper on this matter in October 1987, we said that as a party
we welcomed this indication that the Government now recognised the obscenity of sustaining a system whereby bona fide elected representatives were forced—by law—to share council chambers with those who would advocate violence in pursuit of political objectives.
We agreed with some of the suggestions in that paper but naturally disagreed with others. We agreed that while it is a fundamental right of democracy that people should be free to participate in elections, it is also reasonable to conclude that that freedom does not include the threat of or the use of violence against political opponents or "challenging democracy" by using the electoral process to undermine democratic institutions. It is a fundamental point that the principle of democracy should not be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.
We also agreed that a serious threat to stable local government comes from Sinn Fein, the candidates of which are proud of their open support for the armed struggle. "Armed struggle" is a euphemism for terrorist crime, including the murders carried out by the Provisional IRA. I must point out that the term "stable local government" alludes to a principle—and does not suggest that Northern Ireland enjoys local government comparable to or in line with that of other areas of the United Kingdom.
It is also true that the presence in council chambers of Sinn Fein councillors who are fully committed to supporting a terrorist campaign gives rise to grave alarm among other councillors, especially when the Provisional IRA, which they openly support, has been responsible for the murder of public representatives—I shall name only three: Robert Bradford, Edgar Graham and Charles

Armstrong, who was the chairman of Armagh council—and when those same Sinn Fein councillors have sought to justify those killings.
It must be obvious to everyone who wishes to see it that in such circumstances other council members take the view that information gleaned by such Sinn Fein activists in the course of their elective duties might become available to terrorist organisers. Is it not understandable then that some councils have attempted to solve these problems themselves by procedural devices to overcome such dangers? However, court challenges have rejected the legality of those devices. It becomes essential, therefore, that steps should be taken to give effect to the widely held view that those who condone or support terrorist violence should not be permitted to exploit democratic institutions.
I come now to the part of the Bill that attempts to address those problems and to the declaration which is to be signed by all candidates at local government elections. It seems clear from the wording of the declaration—I shall not weary the House by reading it in full—that a candidate can sign such a declaration and then run a campaign supporting the armed struggle, making it clear when speaking that he or she signed the declaration only to continue their attempts to destroy the very democratic institutions that the declaration is designed to protect. The declaration could also be signed by those with a long track record of violence, for the same reasons. The declaration must be capable of preventing unrepentant supporters of violence from entering council chambers.
The whole reason for the Bill is likely to be called into question if the present wording is not amended because otherwise there is a great danger that the legislation will be rendered completely ineffective by Sinn Fein candidates who, on being elected, blatantly carry on their support for violence, thus challenging other councillors to take them to court. Councillors from constitutional parties must not be put in such a position. The declaration must impose conditions from the date of signing and action must be taken against anyone breaching its terms.
The declaration must be redrafted in a way that will present real difficulties for supporters of terrorism, such as those in Sinn Fein. We must recognise that those who have condoned murder will not, as would honourable men, have any compunction about signing the present declaration. Therefore, it must be redrafted in a way that will thwart the aims and devalue the credibility of those who act as political advocates for terrorist organisations.
The fact that we do not accord those people any credibility must not blind us to the reality that there are those who do. It is for that reason that we suggest that the word "repudiate" be included in the declaration. To require Sinn Fein candidates to repudiate the Provisional IRA would present them with a serious credibility problem. It follows that each proscribed organisation will have to be specified by name in the declaration. Simply leaving it as it is will enable Sinn Fein to say that it considers that the Provisional IRA is not proscribed by any authority that it is willing to recognise.
We are obviously unhappy about clause 7, which lists those who would be entitled to bring a councillor to the High Court for a breach of the declaration. Surely it has been insult enough for the Northern Ireland Office to require councillors even to talk to Sinn Fein when Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office rightly refuse to do so, without now asking councillors to take on the role


of the Director of Public Prosecutions, thus leaving themselves open to the personal expense and danger that would be inseparable from such an act.
We feel strongly that any breach of the declaration must be deemed a criminal offence. There must be no equivocation whatsoever on the issue. The proposed legislation is neither for the convenience nor for the protection of an individual. It should not be portrayed as either a sop to Unionists, hurt by 20 long years of terrorism, nor as a weapon to be placed in the hands of Unionists.
The declaration is urgently required to protect and maintain those electoral processes upon which the democratic system of Government in the United Kingdom is founded. But it is the primary duty of Government to sustain those processes for the benefit of all the electorate. No self-respecting Government could contemplate any abdication of that responsibility. In this House we should say that if the Government make the law, the Government should enforce the law.
We believe that those who terrorise the community by extortion, kangaroo courts, the destruction of property, intimidation of workers and brutal cowardly murder should, along with those who openly support them, be ostracised by all who believe in the democratic process; otherwise society will be destroyed and we shall inevitably return to the law of the jungle.
Of course we would have wished for greater and more determined efforts to remove the blatant supporters of violence from the ranks of those who prefer the way of democracy. Although we accept the powers in the Bill, which even in its minor way seeks to redress the balance between democracy and terrorism and its supporters, we shall nevertheless seek to strengthen those powers during the passage of the Bill through the House and in Committee.
As a final example of the reasons why this Bill should be introduced, I shall quote an article which appeared in the Belfast News Letter this morning under the heading "Churches in SF boycott". It states:
Churchmen in Castlederg and Newtownstewart have united against the presence of the Sinn Fein chairman of Strabane council at Christmas ceremonies this week.
Feelings have been running high since the IRA murder in Castlederg a fortnight ago of RUC Reservist Willie Monteith and there is solid opposition to the chairman Ivan Barr, who refused to condemn the atrocity and to be associated with a message of sympathy from the council to the dead policeman's family …
A letter from four clergymen in Castlederg has been sent to Strabane district council making it clear they will not share a platform with any person who espouses violence and condones murder.
The letter was signed by Rev Denis Anderson (Methodist), the Rev Stewart Jones (Presbyterian), the Rev Patrick Grant (Roman Catholic), and the Rev Walter Quill (Church of Ireland).
Here I rest my case.

Mr. Ian Gow: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on introducing this measure through the conventional Bill procedure. I am extremely glad that the Bill will be debated in Standing Committee, that it will then have its Report stage on the Floor of the House, followed by a Third Reading and that there will be an opportunity to amend the Bill further in another place.
When my right hon. Friend introduced the Bill today, he hinted that it might be the first of a new programme of giving those who represent Northern Ireland and those who represent other parts of the kingdom the same opportunity to debate and to amend proposed legislation for Northern Ireland as that given to us to amend legislation that affects Great Britain.
My right hon. Friend was kind enough to give way to a single intervention from me when I asked whether, as a result of this Bill, there would be the same qualifications for voting at district elections in Northern Ireland as there are for voting at district elections in England, Scotland and Wales. My right hon. Friend did not answer the question, but said that it was a trick question because it came from me.
Of course, it was a totally strightforward question and it was predictable that it would be asked by an hon. Member. If my right hon. Friend had not foreseen that it was likely to be asked, his officials should most certainly have advised him. I have never sought to trick my right hon. Friend and will never do so. In the three and a quarter years since he has been Secretary of State—he arrived in Northern Ireland on the same day that I arrived at the Treasury—I have had the most cordial relationship with my right hon. Friend. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) will respond in a straightforward way to my straightforward question when he replies to the debate.
It is nearly 10 years since the then shadow Cabinet came to decide on its policy towards Northern Ireland. There was a short debate in that Cabinet—characteristically short, of course, since there were other matters perceived to be of greater moment in the proposals of the incoming Government. In March 1979, the shadow Cabinet agreed to its policy in relation to local government in Northern Ireland, a policy which is now the subject of the Bill. The sentence in the manifesto was clear and unambiguous and you will remember it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It reads:
In the absence of devolved government, we will seek to establish one or more elected regional councils with a wide range of powers over local services.
Here we are, almost nine years on from May 1979, still in the absence of devolved government, but having abandoned and never having tried to implement precisely that policy. It was not suggested by me at the general election in May 1979, but had been suggested by Airey Neave and had been approved by the then shadow Cabinet.
Since we are debating Northern Ireland, since we are debating local government in Northern Ireland and since the title of the Bill is "Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Bill", it is timely to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary why it is that, although there is still no devolved government in Northern Ireland, we have never made any attempt to implement the policies set out in 1979.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe), in a thoughtful and wise speech, which made a deep impression upon the House, referred to his experience as a member of one of the 26 district councils in Northern Ireland. He reminded the House of the difference between the powers conferred upon district councils in Northern Ireland and the powers conferred upon district councils in England, Scotland and Wales. We may wonder why the Bill does not address itself to that difference in powers to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention.


There is another aspect to this matter. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is on record—she has said it in this House—as saying that Northern Ireland is as much a part of the United Kingdom as any part of the United Kingdom situate in Great Britain. That is not entirely so. Those who live in Gloucestershire and Somerset are able to vote for a county council. The constituents of the hon. Member for Antrim, South cannot vote for a county council. In Scotland, not a single person who qualifies to vote for a parliamentary election does not have the opportunity to vote for a regional council. Only in Northern Ireland are the Queen's subjects denied the right to vote for a county council.
Why do I say that that is relevant to the words of the manifesto? In 1979, we were seeking to set up a regional council or councils in Northern Ireland with widely devolved powers over local matters. The shadow Cabinet believed that that county or regional council should enjoy powers similar to those enjoyed in England, Scotland and Wales.
The Conservative research department—a body with which you will be familiar, Mr. Deputy Speaker—has published for the guidance of members a brief, copies of which can be obtained from the Whips' Office. On the last page of the brief appears an article written by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. As one would expect, it is an excellent article, not least because it assists me in the case that I am trying to put.
Writing on 25 November in The Daily Telegraph, of which Labour Members will be keen students, my hon. Friend said:
The Government wants to see progress towards devolution … But no settlement can work without local government.
That was a strange choice of words. I need not justify the choice, for they are not my words. But what did my hon. Friend have in mind when he said that
no settlement can work without local government"?
I know what I have in mind. If he has in mind what I have in mind, I agree with him. It is essential to the settlement of the problems in Northern Ireland that we should have a system of local government that commands the support of the people and that gives to the people of Northern Ireland a system of government similar to that enjoyed in Wiltshire, Gloucestershire and east Sussex.
Despite the fact that my hon. Friend was writing about the Bill in that article, the Bill does not address itself to that fundamental.
My hon. Friend went on to say in the article:
Local government needs able young men and women.
I agree. Local government was able to attract the hon. Member for Antrim, South, who made a distinguished contribution to it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) was also a member of a district council. But what my hon. Friend should have said in his article, and what for some unaccountable reason he did not say, was that we shall not recruit able young men and women to local government in Northern Ireland until we give additional powers to the 26 district councils and until, as we promised to do in 1979, we set up a regional council or councils.
In my hon. Friend's constituency in Wiltshire there are parish councils. The powers of parish councils are not

great. Even in north Wiltshire, the local giants do not serve on parish councils. People of massive ability are not queuing up to get on to parish councils—

Mr. Needham: I am not so sure about that.

Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend disagrees with me. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is a member of his parish council—[Interruption.] I understand that my right hon. Friend's wife is a member of the parish council, and I pay tribute to her. Although it seems to have caused some hilarity, my point is not without importance. We shall attract more readily those people whom my hon. Friend described in his article if we give more power to elected people in Northern Ireland.
Another aspect of the article will have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as it did mine. My hon. Friend said:
We consulted widely and then issued a discussion paper … Following representations we reconsidered.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley and all hon. Members who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland will note the contrast between that consultation, that reconsideration and the claim that 84 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland were in favour of this relatively modest Bill with the total lack of consultation, reconsideration and testing of public opinion before the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed on 15 November 1985. We would not be human if we did not notice that contrast.
I have mentioned one or two matters that should have been included in the Bill but are not. The Bill should have given modest additional powers to the 26 district councils, and it should have implemented the Conservative party's pledge of 3 May 1979.
Of course I shall vote in favour of the Second Reading of the Bill. I agree with its relatively modest proposals, including the one to give 10,000 people the right to vote for district councils, despite the derisory powers that they enjoy. I do not know how many of those 10,000, who have so far been deprived of that great right, will take up the power to vote, but they should have it. The proposal about signing a declaration before one can offer oneself as a candidate for a district council is modest, precisely for the reasons that were described so eloquently by the hon. Member for Antrim, South.
In his article, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said:
We did consider whether enforcement should be by a criminal case, brought by the DPP, or a civil action initiated by the Attorney-General.
That which my right hon. Friend and hon. Friend considered and which both rejected should be reconsidered. It is wrong to say that a citizen should have to go through such a complicated procedure. Many people, not only in Northern Ireland but in my constituency, and even in Wiltshire, North, do not take matters daily to the High Court. It is not part of their normal experience or comprehension. [Laughter.] My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) laughs, but I assure him that most people are unfamiliar with the High Court of Justice.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State tells us in The Daily Telegraph that he has considered the matter carefully. It would have been better if my hon. Friend had decided that, where there seems to be a breach of the terms of an undertaking, that breach should be the subject of


criminal proceedings initiated not by the council, a councillor or an elector, but by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Mercifully, we shall again be able to turn our minds to this matter, thanks to my right hon. Friend, who has used the proper procedure to bring in the Bill. We shall be able to examine the Billl at some length in Committee. We shall welcome the opportunity to test the arguments of my right hon. and hon. Friends against the very consideration that the Minister himself says was undertaken at an earlier stage within his Department.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as the Government have power in this matter, it would be wise for them to ensure that Northern Ireland is properly represented on the Committee so that the voice of Northern Ireland people and their elected representatives can be heard? The matter should not be decided by a Committee on which the elected representatives of Northern Ireland and perhaps Northern Ireland parties will not have a voice.

Mr. Gow: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that that is a matter for the Committee of Selection. Even my derisory influence in this place does not extend to influencing the selection of hon. Members who will consider the Bill. Are not two representatives of the all-powerful Whips' Office seated on the Treasury Bench? We have heard the Secretary of State's introduction and, unless we have voted him off, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) is still on the Committee of Selection. I am sure that he is a keen student of our debates and will read the intervention of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).
I warmly approve of the Bill. I hope that it will reach the statute book shortly but not until it has received rigorous further examination. Some of us, whether or not we are on the Committee, will be keen to return to these important matters on Report. I hope that Ministers will reconsider their decision that initiation after a suspected breach of the undertaking should rest in hands other than those of the Attorney-General.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I have listened to the speech by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). As usual, he speaks interestingly—although not always in terms with which I can agree—about Northern Ireland. I am glad to be able to agree with him on one matter, perhaps even on two—that at last we have an order being discussed on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Tom King: It is a Bill.

Mr. Ashdown: The Secretary of State is right to correct me. It is not an order, but a Bill. It is good to have discussion on the Floor of the House when so much has been done through orders in Committees upstairs or statutory instruments which from time to time we have had to pray against on a negative resolution.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne was also right in another sense in seeking to place this in a broader context —in his case, in the context of local government, on which he has strong views. The Secretary of State spent about 12 minutes sketching the broader context of the Bill and it is right to take a couple of minutes to read the Bill into where we are. In this sense I am glad to be able to agree with the

sense of puzzlement expressed earlier by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). This week we are bringing into the first process of legislation an instrument which will, we hope, assist the Government. In principle, I and my party will vote in favour of Second Reading, although I have some reservations which I shall enter later.
It is with some sadness that I reflect upon the fact that in seeking to provide the Government with an instrument that will assist in the defeat of terrorism, we do so against the background of the Prime Minister's bungling mismanagement of the extradition affair last week. That seriously damaged our capacity to fight terrorism. [Interruption.] Conservative Members choose to disregard unpleasant facts. What the Prime Minister did last week seriously undermined our capacity to achieve the co-operation with the Government of Ireland which is absolutely essential for the defeat of terrorism.

Mr. Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a rule of the House that on Second Reading one may speak only about matters that are in the Bill or could reasonably be in the Bill? What the hon. Gentleman is discussing could not possibly be in the Bill, so is it in order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): A Second Reading debate can go fairly wide. I remind the House that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has just started his speech.

Mr. Ashdown: I am grateful to you for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is ironic that the hon. Gentleman who raised that point of order ranged very widely in his own speech, as did the Secretary of State. I understand why the hon. Member for Eastbourne sought to interrupt. It is because these are uncomfortable words for him. The hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in these matters. I was in Dublin and Belfast last week. What the Prime Minister did was cheered to the echo by those in the IRA who would wish to see the Extradition Act in the South of Ireland not renewed, and it was cheered to the echo by the extremists in the North who would wish to see undermined our capacity to review the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It was also cheered to the echo by those who wish to see relations between the Irish Government and the British Government at their worst possible level because they know that that would damage the fight against terrorism.
I find it odd that this week we are asked to consider a basically good measure when last week the Prime Minister in her handling of these affairs unwittingly, but nevertheless seriously, damaged our capacity to fight the very extremists that the Bill seeks to target. As the Secretary of State fairly and rightly said, many items in the Bill do not attract any kind of excitement or opposition. One is bound to welcome the amendment of the franchise so that those who have been in Northern Ireland for three months can vote in elections. That is in line with the practice throughout the United Kingdom and I am sure that it is the right thing to do. It is also right to amend the disqualification period so that it runs from the end of a sentence rather than from the beginning.
While I am on the subject of sentences, I should say how much we welcome the Government's view that we should also review the whole question of remission for those in prison convicted for acts of terrorism. Until now they have received as of right a 50 per cent. remission whereas the ordinary common criminal in Britain—if there can be such a thing—has to earn remission of only up to


30 per cent. The public and those committed to fighting terrorism do not understand why that is the case, although there are good historical reasons for it. I am glad to see that the Government are sensibly reviewing that.
The central issue of the Bill is the requirement to make a declaration. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who spoke for the Labour party, is no longer in his place. His speech was one of the thinnest and most bankrupt that I have heard in terms of the arguments used for opposing the declaration. The hon. Gentleman's arguments rested on three or four basic principles. Time after time he set up a straw man, knocked him down, and then patted himself on the back and said that that was a reason for not accepting the Government proposals.
First, the hon. Gentleman spoke about section 9 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and he said—I hope that I am not misquoting him in his absence —that the Bill was not necessary because all the provisions of that section were already in position and would do the job. In that case, I cannot see his objection to the Bill. If that is the substance of the Labour party's argument, what is wrong with the Bill? Of course, those who have studied the Bill know perfectly well that it does something extra. It takes the general aim in that section and targets it precisely in a way which, if it is right, can be helpful.
The hon. Gentleman's second argument was that the provisions were unworkable. He said that that was because people would make declarations and then simply break them. He is right at least to identify that as a potential problem in the Bill, because that is what has happened so frequently in Irish history. Organisations that were proscribed simply changed their names and reappeared. The hon. Gentleman must surely realise that the Bill has two parts, and that the second part gives sanctions to the courts so that if someone breaks the declaration, the courts can do something to put the matter right. The hon. Gentleman's argument did not stand up on that basis either.
Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman said that this would cause a whole string of by-elections, with the result that the voice of the IRA would come through. On that, he was exposed by an intervention by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), who said that there are few wards or constituencies in Northern Ireland where the supporters of the IRA are in a majority. My view is that if the by-elections were called—it is a possibility—the likelihood is that they would be called on the specific issue of violence.

Mr. Tom King: And what was said.

Mr. Ashdown: Yes, and on what was said. That is a narrow issue, and while there may be some temptation on the part of those who espouse violence in Northern Ireland to go through the election process again because of the advantage of publicity, the outcome would not be as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North suggested. The likelihood is that there would be a defeat in most such cases.
I do not wish to concentrate too much on the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, but those who read it tomorrow will find that it betrays yet again what is becoming a depressing semblance of bias in the Labour party, which seems always to take the

Nationalist case on Northern Ireland. That is depressing because any party seeking to achieve some success in Northern Ireland must be seen to be at least even-handed, but I did not find that.
Secondly, on reading that speech, anyone who takes an objective view of it will reach the conclusion that the speech was made by someone who wants his party to vote against the Bill. The whole speech was constructed to that end. The hon. Gentleman said that the Bill was ridiculous and unworkable, would make matters worse, would put things into the hands of the terrorists and be a propaganda victory. The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), who is now on the Labour Front Bench, will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that Labour Members will not be voting against the Bill but will abstain. If that is so, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North should have made a different speech.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but he forgets that when the Liberal Government in the early part of the century and the Liberal party at the end of the last century argued for home rule, they were accused of supporting the Nationalist case. If he does not know that, he has not read his Liberal history. The Labour party's position is not all that different from that of the Liberal party in the past. Is the hon. Gentleman really supporting an oath being taken—[HON. MEMBERS: "Declaration."]—all right, a declaration, but it is basically an oath—before people can stand for election to any position? Where is his Liberalism in supporting that?

Mr. Ashdown: The cause of peace in Ireland is cursed by history and by people who continually look back instead of forward. It may be that the Liberal Government took that view at the turn of the century. I have great respect for the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), but does he not realise—it is frequently the case that the Labour party does not—that there is now a different situation in Northern Ireland from that which pertained in the early part of the century?
Anybody seeking to achieve some success in bringing peace to Northern Ireland would want to take at least a balanced view in these matters. It may be that the Labour party does. The hon. Member for Walton seems to admit that it does not, but I am not sure that that view would be taken by the hon. Member for Leicester, South. We must wait and see. The public perception of Labour's attitude is that it is a Pavlovian reaction against the Government, whatever the situation, and in favour of the Nationalist cause.
I do not pretend that this legislation is perfect. There are flaws in it, but almost no legislation is perfect. It may be that it throws up some anomalies, but the question we must ask ourselves is not whether, as a single piece of legislation, it will defeat the IRA or the Ulster Volunteer Force—of course it will not—but whether it is a useful instrument in the hands of the Government for defeating terrorism and one that does not significantly damage civil liberties. My view is that it is a useful mechanism.
People may sign the declaration knowing that they are about to overturn it, but we must not underestimate the effect of propaganda—for example, the propaganda effect of Sinn Fein signing a declaration against violence. That would be advantageous. However, the sanctions placed in the hands of the court are sensible. After all, if a court in Britain can disqualify a person from holding office because


he is a bankrupt, it is not unreasonable to disqualify a person for giving support and succour to violence and acts of terrorism.

Mr. Hume: Who will bring the cases?

Mr. Ashdown: That is a fair question, and I shall come to it shortly.
We have some reservations about what the Government have chosen to do. As I said when I first heard the proposal, I feel that there are some problems that the Government should recognise in putting this process into operation the moment people are elected. If they sign the declaration, they can say anything they like and get free access to the airways during the election campaign, but the moment they are elected the sanctions come into operation. That opens up the possibility of exaggerating the effects of allowing people access to the airways during an election campaign for a position that they will not be allowed to hold afterwards.
The second question, which was rightly raised by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), is, who will bring in the court cases? Here I am somewhat in agreement with the hon. Member for Eastbourne. This provision will probably not deliver what the Government hope because the challenge will be brought by a citizen, a councillor or a full council. The Government are dodging the issue and not grasping the nettle. If this is their case, they should be prepared to take the matter up to challenge in the court. The matter should be put before the Director of Public Prosecutions or some other such person so that the Government carry this forward. I am afraid that many will fear for their lives if they bring such an action, and this may militate against the best effect that the Bill can achieve.
One or two technical concerns must be voiced at this stage. My first concern is about legal aid. Many people who might bring a case against a councillor would be deterred if the entire financial burden fell on them. What protection can be offered in that case, and what protection might be offered against the inevitable intimidation that would follow? The Alliance party of Northern Ireland has said that the Attorney-General should bring these cases, for the reasons that I have set out. We need to know why the Government have decided not to have the Attorney-General or some body to bring the case on their behalf rather than leaving it to the citizen.
No mention is made of political parties bringing cases. Has the Minister considered that if there is no financial aid a party might have resources when an individual would not? A party case would also protect individuals from intimidation. What will be used by way of evidence? It would be useful if the Minister—if not now, then later —could explain what a citizen living in Northern Ireland might have to bring before the High Court as evidence if he or she wished to bring a prosecution under the Bill.
Those points having been made, the general principle should be followed through. There are issues which might well be amended in Committee. However, I believe that in this instance the Government have hit on a reasonable instrument which may assist in the battle against terrorism and violence from both sides in Northern Ireland. On that basis, the proposals deserve the support in principle of my party tonight and they will get it.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I wish to say a few words because I want those in Northern Ireland who read our debates in Hansard to know that there are some mainland British Members of Parliament from another part of the United Kingdom who share the anger, frustration and shame of ordinary, decent, law-abiding people who want to serve in civic life and serve their communities who must sit side by side with men of violence. I want those people to be aware that on this side of the water we understand their feelings.
I have no illusion about the difficulties of making legislation such as this stick. Dealing with the IRA with an Act of Parliament is like controlling a mad dog with a paper chain. I have no illusions about the difficulties, but, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said, should we pass down on the other side of the street? Should we just do nothing because of all the criticisms that have been levelled today at the Bill?
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), the Opposition spokesman, could not suggest a better alternative. At one stage he was forced in this Chamber, which for centuries has stood for freedom under the law, to wave the rag of the IRA and Sinn Fein to buttress his argument. Of course Sinn Fein will not argue that the Bill will harm it. I thought that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) made one of his best speeches so far in the Chamber, and I agree with him that much of the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North was very weak.
Let us consider the argument that Sinn Fein would force by-elections. Of course it may force them. but, as the hon. Member for Yeovil said, it will do that on the narrow point of violence. How much support will Sinn Fein receive? I was told in Northern Ireland that it might have a sure chance only of winning the Lower Falls road ward. It would certainly not win many other wards on that basis.
There is an argument that the Attorney-General should take issue. I see little point in the Attorney-General losing what reputation he has as a man of the law rather than a man of the Government, as a man involved in the legal process rather than a man who is the instrument of political will, by pursuing one political party or another. That would be a dangerous innovation.
It is interesting that the very people who argue that the Attorney-General should become involved in the political process in this instance also suggest that it is wrong that the Attorney-General in southern Ireland should view the Patrick Ryan affair on purely legal instead of political grounds and argue that he should be taking a political decision. We all hope that he will take that extradition decision.
The Bill is a fair compromise. Of course we could consider more draconian measures such as proscription. However, we should be careful because, if we adopt more draconian measures, we will not be any more effective on the ground in Northern Ireland, but we will give the political oxygen that the IRA and Sinn Fein need in international opinion. We should be aware of that danger.
I took grave exception to the comment of the hon. Members for Yeovil and for Kingston upon Hull, North about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister does not speak in the desiccated language of chanceries. She is not a professional diplomat. She speaks instinctively for what the British


people believe in. She speaks for their frustration at delays in extradition. However, nothing that my right hon. Friend has said should be construed as being in any way anti our many friends in the Republic. That point will be repeated, I am sure.
The overwhelming majority of decent people in the Republic, the overwhelming majority of members of the Dail, and certainly all members of the Government of the Republic are as committed as we are to dealing with terrorism. Their stakes in this matter are almost as high, if not higher, than ours. We might lose the Province, but they might lose their country if the IRA wins. It was sad that some of my hon. Friends last Thursday described the actions of the Irish Government as a double cross. They were no such thing. We should sympathise with their difficulties and encourage the decent people who are trying to expedite the process under the laws of the Republic.
In this debate we should avoid extremist language and accept that this Bill, like any Bill on these matters, has limitations. However, it is an essential first step, and as such it is welcome.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: This Bill is a bitter-sweet pill for my constituents. It removes a long-standing grievance and injustice by intending to restore the franchise to more than 10,000 people who for many years have been unable to vote in local government elections in Northern Ireland. It took a long time for that reform to come about. That is a natural act of justice which should have been implemented many years ago, certainly at the commencement of direct rule in 1972–73. We are happy to accept that it will now be in place before the local government elections in May 1989.
The part of the Bill which we find bitter to swallow and with which we cannot agree is the part which will, if it is passed, enforce candidates at the next local government elections to make the declaration against terrorism. We oppose and disagree with the proposed legislation because it will have a contrary effect to that which the Government have given as the reason for its implementation.
When anyone from Northern Ireland, particularly a member of the SDLP, speaks about violence, it is always necessary to prefix one's remarks by stating that the SDLP is totally and implacably opposed to all forms of violence, be they actual, verbal or insinuated. Our history and, more important, our record of performance since our foundation in 1973 show that that statement is irrefutable.
The declaration of non-violence provided for in clauses 2 to 9 will have an immediate effect. It will cause increased tension within the council chambers. It will lead to a heightening of community tensions. It will also have a totally contrary effect to the Government's stated intention of in some way restricting the ability of the paramilitaries to propagate their evil ways by preventing them from participating in local government.
I have had 28 years' experience of local government in Northern Ireland, part of it spent under the old regime up to 1973 and some 15 years under the new regime. I have no doubt that both paramilitary groupings, Loyalist and Republican, will sign the declaration without any compunction whatsoever. We already have evidence that the Republican paramilitaries will sign such a declaration.
So much for the intended effect of preventing people who subscribe to acts of violence from participating in local government in Northern Ireland. It is ironic that the Government in the past encouraged the paramilitaries to participate in the democratic process by providing funds and assets. There has now been a complete turnaround which will simply give the paramilitaries a tremendous propaganda weapon which will be used in two ways.
First, for the rest of the world, it will be used as an illustration or an argument to support the case that they can promote their cause only by violence instead of using the democratic process. That argument and that propaganda will be listened to, particularly in North America and in certain parts of Europe.
Secondly—additionally or alternatively—they will take part in the local democratic process in spite of the declaration they have signed, and use their suspensions and their court cases, which possibly will go to the highest court in the land, and the election campaigns, as an on-going daily propaganda weapon which will give front-page headlines to the very cause to which we all are opposed—the use of violence for political purposes.
The proposals are all the more idiotic because they are totally unnecessary. As has already been said, under section 21 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, section 9 of the 1987 Act and section 10 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984, such support for proscribed organisations or any attempt to encourage support for such organisations, making any contribution to their funds, giving assistance in any way or arranging any meetings of a proscribed organisation are already criminal offences.
The Government must explain to the House why they have not used any of those provisions to produce the effect that they are trying to achieve under the proposed legislation. There is further legislation in article 9 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Act 1987, which was the successor to the Prevention of Incitement to Hatred Act, which makes it an offence for anyone to use words or behaviour that is likely to cause the furtherance of violence or even hatred or tension between the two communities. That provision has not been used.
The Northern Ireland legislative statute book is weighed down with legislation that can be used for the very purposes for which the Government are trying to argue that they need this legislation. Therefore, why has the proposed legislation containing the declaration been brought before the House? We do not have to look too far. It is an exercise in trying to pretend that a new package of anti-terrorist legislation is being promoted that will in some way lessen the impact of terrorism in Northern Ireland. Nothing is further from reality.
Clause 6, to which many hon. Members have referred, explains what is meant by a breach of the declaration of non-violence. The more one reads of the proposed legislation, the more one must despair of the consequences which will arise from its implementation. The Bill fails to make clear what standard of support or what measure will be applied to support or alleged support for a proscribed organisation is banned by the Bill. It appears that any word or deed in support of a proscribed organisation or an act of violence will be a breach of the terms of a councillor's declaration and hence is such an action. Here we enter a legal quagmire that will bog down the courts of


Northern Ireland and the higher courts of appeal in years to come, with the propaganda to which I have already referred attaching to it.
In the absence of any guidance in the Bill, judges will be given an impossible task because of the difficulty of interpretation. For example, clause 6(3)(a) describes a breach of the declaration, and uses the words:
whether the expression of support or approval is made by spoken or written words, the display of any written matter or by other behaviour".
The expression, "other behaviour" is totally open-ended. What does it mean? As I said, I have been involved in local government for a considerable time and I can give some examples of what it might mean to people on the ground.
If a resolution condemning an act of violence comes before a council, and a councillor does not respond positively to that condemnation, is he or she thereby demonstrating support for the act of violence, although he or she has done absolutely nothing to demonstrate such an attitude? Or let us suppose, as often happens, that an incident has occurred in the local district and a request is made by the chair for a minute's silence in respect for someone who has been killed or has suffered a tragic loss, be they Loyalist or Republican. If a councillor remains seated, is that an act of support for an act of violence which led to a death or a murder? Those are practical problems which will arise in council chambers.
If a person attends a public meeting outside a council chamber at which a proscribed organisation or supporters of a proscribed organisation publicly declare their support for a policy of violence, is that an offence, and has that person to prove his attendance as being against the policy promulgated from the platform? If he remains silent, will his behaviour be interpreted as support for that violence?
What will happen if a public representative supports a notice or motion in a council chamber proposed by a member of a political party which supports violence? Hon. Members have constantly referred to members of Sinn Fein as the only supporters of violence in the council chambers, but I have sat in council chambers and in the Assembly of Northern Ireland with people from every party except my own and the small Alliance party among members who have supported and used violence in the furtherance of political objectives. The list of possibilities stretches into absurd infinity, yet we are being presented with the Bill as a vehicle for the prevention of terrorism within our council chambers.
It is clear that the Bill will set the extremists in the council chambers at each others' throats and the process of local democracy and respect for it will be sacrificed on the altar of the legislation. Furthermore, it will enable the councillors of a particular party, if they have a majority in a council chamber, to use ratepayers' money to pursue the minority parties on every word, date, action or omission which they determine is something to do with, or can be interpreted in some loose way as support for, a particular cause or group that supports violence.
Last week, the Minister presented a White paper which says that legislation will be introduced to prevent political parties from using ratepayers' money to pursue political objectives, yet the Bill will enable majority parties in council chambers to pursue minority parties for real or imagined acts in contravention of the declaration of non-violence. The House can take it from me that it will happen on a month-to-month basis. The Bill puts us on a long and slippery slope of legislation and confrontation in

Northern Ireland. There is a total contradiction in Government attitudes as represented in the Bill and in last week's White Paper.
Clause 7, which, too, has been referred to by many hon. Members, enables a group or person to take legal action. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) made clear, the Bill provides that a councillor or an elector can initiate on his own behalf and at his own expense a course of action or a prosecution under the Bill. That is what the Government say can happen. The Government argue that it is impossible to have jury trials in Northern Ireland because jurors would be subjected to intimidation and acts of violence. Will someone explain the contradiction in those attitudes? A person will be able to prosecute someone whom he believes to be a member of a paramilitary organisation but will not be able to take part in the collective decision of a jury.
Clause 6 (a)(ii), which deals with terrorism, refers to
violence for political ends connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland"—
not violence for political ends, only that connected with Northern Ireland. That is a strange phrase to find in a Bill dealing with terrorism.
What will happen if a person supports violence used by the Government for political ends? In the past, councillors have supported such action taken by the Government. Will Sinn Fein be able to take action against those councillors and local representatives? We are setting a pattern whereby extremists on both sides of the council chamber will take legal potshots at one another and bring local councils into disrepute.
I know of many councillors, by reputation, and personally, who have participated in the execution of violence for political purposes. I am talking of those not of a Sinn Fein persuasion but of a Unionist persuasion. They have manned barricades, turned people away from their work or intimidated them to prevent them from going to work because it did not suit their political objectives. All those people will merrily sign the declaration with what they consider to be a clear conscience.
Many people are sitting in council chambers tonight, in the Unionist tradition, who have been connected with—I do not want to go further because of the sub judice rule —the manufacture and storage of arms. They have connections with paramilitary organisations such as Ulster Resistance—that was refuted by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson)—and when arms were found that allegedly belonged to Ulster Resistance, the Democratic Unionist party issued a statement withdrawing its support for Ulster Resistance. If my memory serves me right, part of that statement said that it was involved to maintain a well-disciplined army of men. For what purpose is a well-disciplined army of men maintained, unless it is, at some stage, to initiate an act of violence in pursuance of a political objective?
If matters carry on as I think they will, not only will local government be brought into disrepute but there will be few councillors in Northern Ireland. There will be only SDLP members and a small number from the Alliance party to carry on local government business. I ask the Secretary of State to recognise, even at this late stage, the turmoil and stress that the Bill will cause in local government and to pull back from implementing the clauses that deal with the declaration on violence.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne referred to the need to transfer substantive powers to local government in


Northern Ireland. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the judicial tribunal of the early 1970s, which found that, of the nine causes of civil disorder in Northern Ireland, seven arose from the maladministration and performance of local government in the execution of its duties.
For some reason, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) introduced the issue of parole and said that the intended measures for Northern Ireland will give it parity with the rest of the United Kingdom. That is not true; there are no jury trials, so there is a different sentencing procedure. Once a third of the sentence has been served here, parole can be considered.
I ask the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary to consider not the legal jargon but the practical consequences of what will happen in council chambers, the courts and the press in Northern Ireland in future. I ask them to consider with an open mind what has been said about the gross deficiencies of the Bill. I hope that even at this late stage they will draw back from setting this precedent.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: I make it plain that I strongly support the principle of the Bill and will support it in the Lobby tonight, especially the part relating to the declaration on terrorism of those elected to office.
I found it appallingly disappointing, but perhaps not surprising, to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). At a time when terrorists have killed more than 80 people in Northern Ireland this year, when the majority of people want this measure—as the opinion poll on Ulster Television showed—and when local government in Northern Ireland must be buttressed and must gain the acceptability of people in Northern Ireland, the hon. Gentleman could not put forward one positive measure as an alternative to the Bill. I found that quite appalling.
The strongest arguments in favour of the Bill are those of principle. It was clear from a visit that a number of hon. Members paid to Northern Ireland last week that the majority of people there want a sensible, sensitive system of devolved government. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) that it must be the first objective of the British Government to bring that about. A devolved system of government will not receive general assent unless it is perceived as fair, objective and balanced and unless there is confidence in the existing system of local government.
The sectarian history in Northern Ireland is tense and goes back a long way. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) gave the difference between the present and the past. Regarding Northern Ireland, Harold Nicolson said:
The Irish themselves have no sense of the past: for them the present began on October 17th 1171, when Henry II landed at Waterford.
There is cynicism among the Catholics, who rightly feel that they have been discriminated against over the years, and among the Protestants who, from the home rule crisis of 1886, when they removed themselves from the main stream of British politics, to the partition of 1920, when Austin Chamberlain hoped for a union in Ireland, with their suspicions, however wrong, of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, have been worried that they will be

marginalised and nudged out of the United Kingdom. Whether that is right or wrong, it is the present feeling among Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland.
That cynicism about effective local government can only be exacerbated by what happened in the examples given by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe). The chairman of Fermanagh district council, a Sinn Feiner, refused to condemn the events at Enniskillen. We hear of Gerry Dokerty, who was elected to the Londonderry council, despite having previously tried to blow up the Guildhall in London. On our visit, we met a gentleman in Newry who was aggrieved because he had to sit in a council chamber two places in front of a gentleman who he had a pretty good idea was involved in the assassination of his brother-in-law.
Against that background, it is not surprising that local government in Northern Ireland does not have the best reputation or that the best young people do not wish to support local democracy in practice by becoming members of local councils. If local democracy and effective administration are to gain the people's confidence, the need for the Bill, and especially the declaration, is imperative.
I have three worries about the legislation, the lesser of which concerns the declaration, which begins:
I declare that, if elected, I will not by word or deed".
That provision does not cover candidates while they are taking part in elections. I understand the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that we cannot study every utterance of every candidate—although in England a police officer can arrest a person for contravening the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976. Such people are by no means as public as candidates in a public election.
As constituted, the Bill may lead to a potential for mockery whereby terrorists fight a campaign on terrorist principles, having signed the declaration. They may say, "If I am elected, I shall not be able to say what I have been saying during the campaign." I have some sympathy with the argument of the hon. Member for Antrim, South that a stronger declaration would make repudiating terrorism and a list of proscribed organisations a condition of candidacy. The quality of debate and of those taking part in, and not merely those who win, elections is important and underpins democratic values.
My second concern is with the penalties that will attach to those who break their declarations. The Government's discussion paper talked about a serious threat to "legitimate political activity", a "severe challenge to democracy" and a "deep public concern". The proposed penalties for breaking the law, which try to deal with that deep public concern, are only civil, not criminal. The maximum period of disqualification from office is five years. Surely advocating terrorism is tantamount to behaviour which, under the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, is likely to arouse hatred or fear in the general population and is a criminal offence leading to imprisonment.
Surely arousing sectarian fear and hatred and advocating terrorism are at least as bad as arousing racial hatred. A person who transgresses against the provisions of the Race Relations Act can be arrested by a policeman. That is a criminal matter which is tried in a Crown court and carries a penalty of up to two years' imprisonment. I cannot see the difference between inciting sectarian hatred and inciting racial hatred, especially in Northern Ireland.


I hope that the Government will ensure that transgression of the declaration is a serious criminal offence, not merely a civil one.
Thirdly, I am worried about methods of enforcement. I do not believe that civil action will be particularly appropriate or effective. It would be illogical if it were, given the way in which this has been recognised by the Government in the speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and in the discussion paper. The conclusion to the consultation paper states:
The Government accepts its responsibility to safeguard local democracy and to seek to prevent the deliberate destabilisation of political life in the Province by apologists for violence.
The Bill, which is meant to countermand that destabilisation applies merely to individuals attacking other citizens through a civil action.

Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech, but there is one glaring omission. I probably have the unique record of being the only living person who has been disqualified from a Northern Ireland Assembly. My crime was not support of terrorism or anything like that but the fact that I had the audacity to sit in an Irish Parliament. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will bend his mind to this anomaly, which is a delightful irony. This Parliament is setting up an inter-parliamentary tier with the Parliament of the Republic of Ireland, but the statute book still provides that someone from the North of Ireland who sits in the Parliament of the Republic of Ireland should be disqualified from not only this House but any assembly in the North of Ireland.

Mr. Coombs: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I want to continue my argument and I must hurry.
The Government's major argument—as adduced by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in the article in The Daily Telegraph—for not taking action on behalf of citizens for transgressions of the declaration, is that it would lead to difficulties with political argument and impartiality. Surely those difficulties are addressed already in Northern Ireland by the Government or their agencies, the Crown prosecution service or the Director of Public Prosecutions in approving extraditions and prosecutions for far more sensitive crimes.
If the Government are concerned about the intimidation of witnesses, how much more should they be concerned about the intimidation of witnesses if the initiators of civil actions have to prosecute without any Government backing? It is crucial that the Government give a lead. Because the Bill is so important and is wanted so strongly by the moderate majority in Northern Ireland, the Government must shoulder the responsibility of seeing the legislation through whenever the code is broken.
No doubt many hon. Members will accuse the Government of being overweening, malicious and offending against civil liberties. Those hon. Members should take comfort from the words of an American politician who knew something about civil strife in his country. Abraham Lincoln said:
It has long been a grave question whether any government not too strong for the liberties of its people can he strong enough to maintain its liberties in great emergencies.

These are times in Northern Ireland, sadly, of great emergencies. I support the Bill, but I hope that the Government will see fit to strengthen it in Committee in the way that I have suggested.

Mr. Tony Benn: I believe that I am the first speaker called today who intends to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill after having voted for the reasoned amendment.

Mr. Mallon: No, the right hon. Gentleman is not.

Mr. Benn: Perhaps other hon. Members have said the same thing.
This is a dangerous little Bill, made no less offensive because of the fact that it will be wholly and completely ineffective, as has been pointed out by other hon. Members. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State was told to do something after the recent explosions, so he came up with the ban on Sinn Fein people appearing on broadcasts and this little Bill to get a person to take an oath before he stands as a candidate.
It is strange to me, however, that the people against whom the Secretary of State has directed his anger are those using the electoral process. If someone stands as a candidate, he is using the ballot box to advance his cause and, if elected, he is aiming to use the media to advance it too.
As the Secretary of State did, I want to go through the proposals that have been made in Parliament in my lifetime, which would bring peace to Ireland. Partition—failed; direct rule—failed; Stormont—failed; power-sharing—failed; internment without trail—failed: sending in troops—I was in the Cabinet which did that—failed; strip searching—failed; plastic bullets—failed: Diplock courts—failed; supergrass trials, the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974, the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the shoot-to-kill policy—failed; and extradition is not doing very well.
Any other assembly in the world that was discussing the situation in Northern Ireland today would be going through that list, but only the British Parliament is able to gather together and congratulate the Minister, with qualification, on producing a Bill that imposes an oath. [Interruption.] An oath and a declaration are merely religious or secular words to describe the same thing.
I have been looking into the history of this matter, as I am a bit of a historian. I looked up the Act of the Scottish Parliament of 29 August 1681:
for the security of the protestant Religion against Papists and Phanaticks; Together with the Oath to be taken by all Persons in Publick Trusts".
It is a marvellous Act of Parliament and requires people to denounce and renounce the Pope and all his works and includes in it a pledge not to
take up Arms against the King
or ever rise in arms against the King.
The principle of trying to deal with religion, or religious or political movements, by oath is absurd. There is a more recent parallel. President Botha said that Nelson Mandela could come out of prison if he gave a pledge comparable with the one that the Secretary of State asks us to impose by this legislation. Very much to Nelson Mandela's credit, he said that he would rather stay in prison that renounce his commitment to a free South Africa. I know that there


are differences, because the franchises and circumstances there are different, but the point that the House will not discuss is, what is terrorism?
Were those people who were fighting to get rid of the Russian troops from Afghanistan terrorists? Are members of the African National Congress in South Africa terrorists? Were members of the Maquis in France, who threw bombs into cafés where there were Germans terrorists? The reality is—the House had better face it—that violence has been used in the British empire. I have met numerous terrorists who ended up having tea with the Queen, having been imprisoned for the same sort of offence that the Secretary of State is now seeking to impose with his little Bill. Gandhi, who believed in non-violence, was put in gaol, as were Nehru and Makarios. They were all in gaol because they were members of nationalist movements.
All that I am saying to the Secretary of State—he knows it, whether he wants to hear it or not—is that we cannot beat national movements by these methods. We can try as hard as we like, but we cannot do it.

Mr. Tom King: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to discuss the speech that he is making with the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who would be the first to denounce violence? Does he believe that any of the movements that he has mentioned, and which he believes to be nationalist, managed to achieve so derisory a vote as Sinn Fein achieved in the Republic of Ireland, where it managed 1·8 per cent. of the vote? The right hon. Gentleman gave his own game away by admitting that there was a slight difference, that there is a universal franchise and the people are able to vote and that there is therefore no excuse for violence.

Mr. Benn: If there is derisory support for Sinn Fein, no one advocating violence would ever be elected. That is the absurdity of the Secretary of State's argument. He says that there is no support for violence, but when Sinn Fein members are elected and take a view of the national struggle which is theirs and not mine, he says, "We will take away your right to sit and to vote." It is exactly the same with the ban on broadcasting. My intervention touched the core of the matter. If we attack elected people, we are really attacking those who elected them. That is the principle upon which representative government depends. If the Secretary of State wishes to intervene again, I should listen to him for hours.
If we attack a Member who has been elected to this House and say that he cannot broadcast on the BBC, we are attacking his electors, because all of us here are nothing without those who sent us here. That is what representative democracy is about. The Secretary of State is not taking further measures against those engaged in the armed struggle—he is taking measures against those who have been elected by choosing the route of the ballot box.

Mr. Mallon: Somehow I have been drawn into this. Lest my silence indicate consent in either direction, I must say that I think both points are wrong. I do not think that there is any aura of invincibility or rightness about paramilitary or terrorist activity in Ireland or anywhere else; nor do I think that they will be defeated by this type of legislation. The only way in which terrorism and paramilitary activity in Ireland will be defeated is when

people, in their own hearts and minds, decide that they will not give the terrorists support. That is the weakness in this measure, as it has been in the other measures that we have seen in the past three weeks.

Mr. Benn: I shall not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman, except to say that the immediate issue goes back a long way. In 1884, Sir William Harcourt, the then Home Secretary, refused to give London control of its own police because of "Irish outrages". My grandfather was elected in Tower Hamlets in 1892 as a home ruler, and Ritchie, the Tory Member he beat, said that if Ireland had home rule there would be chaos, anarchy and civil war.
The Secretary of State should not tell the House that this is a new move by dangerous Left-wing Members to try to encourage the bullet in Northern Ireland. Partition was a product of the bullet. The Black and Tans and the partition of Ireland were the imposition of partition by force and it ill befits a Government who favour partition to say, "Now we've cut you up by force, you must commit yourself to limit your aspirations to the structures that we set."
It has been noted that it is time that constructive things were said.

Mr. Stephen Day: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Benn: I am coming to the end of my speech; I promised to be brief.
Of course the horrific loss of life in Ireland is of concern to everyone. I know no one who believes that that is the way forward for Ireland but, like any war—this is a war, and not crime in the ordinary sense as it is presented—it has to be brought to an end by negotiation. Although I am not an Irish Member, I wanted to speak in this debate because every attack that the Government make on civil liberties in Ireland encroaches on us. It begins in Ireland and then comes here. I have seen it with police action, with the Prevention of Terrorism Act, as with constituents of mine in Bristol.
The reputation of British justice abroad is about as low as it can be. [Interruption.] Of course it is. Why do Conservative Members think that the Belgian Government took the decision that they did? Why has the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg ruled against British decisions 21 times? Mr. Gorbachev will come to this country this week and may meet the families of the Birmingham six, just as the Prime Minister went to meet—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The right hon. Gentleman is straying rather a long way from the Bill. I hope that he will return to it.

Mr. Benn: I shall leave Mr. Gorbachev out of local government in Northern Ireland, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and respect your great knowledge and authority in the Chair.
If the war in Ireland is to end, there must be a round table conference. The jurisdiction of Britain in Northern Ireland must end—not under threat of the bullet, but by a decision of the British Parliament. Every assistance must then be giving to try to bring the fractured communities together. I have a feeling that, because of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, some of the Protestants in the North would be happy to see the end of the British Government because they do not have much time for what the Government are


doing under the stealthy mechanisms of that agreement. More people come to that conclusion day by day as policy after policy fails.
Instead of an oath, a pledge or whatever else must be given before someone can represent his people in local government, it would be better if the Government had the sense to open the whole question to public discussion in a round table conference. For that reason I shall vote against the Bill being given a Second Reading and I advise as many of my hon. Friends as possible to do the same. Only in that way can we focus upon the real issue that we are debating.

Mr. Simon Burns: I trust that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) will forgive me if I do not follow him but, sadly, I could not find anything in his outburst with which to agree.
I welcome the Bill. I heard what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about possible anomalies, and the Bill may not be 100 per cent. the ideal measure, but that does not mean that we should stand back and do nothing. Decent people are disgusted by the fact that people can stand in local government elections in Northern Ireland even if they are convicted terrorists or support terrorism. It is offensive to every bone in their bodies that people who refuse to reject terrorism can take part in the elected offices of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Is it not possible that decent people in Northern Ireland will refuse to sign the declaration because they do not believe in oaths or declarations? Are they not the very people that this Bill is supposed to encourage? They will cut themselves off from the political game.

Mr. Burns: I do not quite understand the hon. Gentleman's remarks. If he has read the Bill he must know that we are asking people to make not an oath, but a declaration. I remind him that before any hon. Member can take his seat in the House he must sign an oath of allegiance or affirm. I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's argument.
For two long and tortuous decades, the people of Northern Ireland have suffered at the cowardly hands of the IRA, which has indiscriminately attacked not only the Army and the police but the elderly, women, children and innocent people wanting to go about their normal lives and business. The IRA cares nothing for the damage, misery and uncertainty that it has caused over the past 20 years. It has scant regard for the sanctity of life or for democracy itself. It has failed ever to win the intellectual argument of its case, so it has resorted to the use of the Armalite and the bomb to try to achieve its aims.
Since 1983, democracy in Northern Ireland has been affronted by the election of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams). To add insult to injury, in 1985, 59 Sinn Fein members were elected to local government in Northern Ireland. It is a travesty of justice that convicted terrorists and apologists for violence should be allowed to participate in the democratic institutions of Northern Ireland, while the IRA continues its murderous campaign of bombings, without ever rejecting a policy that is so repugnant both to democracy and to decent people.
The IRA seeks to undermine the democratic fabric of society in Northern Ireland, which is why it is so

imperative the people who seek local government office should make a declaration rejecting violence before they can take their seats in any council chamber in the Province.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Is the hon. Gentleman sure of the consequences of such a declaration? Does it mean that those who do so are rejecting the Government's purchase and deployment of the Trident nuclear weapon—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us keep to the Bill before the House.

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not allowing me to be tempted down that irrelevant path—[Interruption.] I could easily answer the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) in the proper debate, but it is not the subject of this debate, on this measure, on this night.
I am pleased that the Bill will put a stop to individuals seeking election and taking seats in local government in Northern Ireland before they have signed a declaration against terrorism. That will be warmly welcomed not only by the vast majority of hon. Members, but throughout the country in Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland itself. No longer will councillors have to sit in the same chamber with those who openly espouse the cause of violence, which is so deeply repugnant to them. This measure amply demonstrates the Government's commitment to block any loopholes and to stop the propagation of terrorist propaganda advancing a cause that should be struck down in every instance.
The proposal to amend the local government franchise will be welcomed, for the most part. It is quite extraordinary that British citizens—service men's wives and families over the age of 18 and others who have gone to live in Northern Ireland—cannot participate in local government democratic processes in the same way that someone from Northern Ireland coming to live, for example, in Chelmsford, can register and vote in our local elections. The correction of that anomaly is long overdue.
I find it rather odd that some of the 10,500 people who will be enfranchised will be citizens of the Irish Republic. Indeed, I have always found it odd that they can vote in British elections, whether in Liverpool, Glasgow or, indeed, Northern Ireland after the Bill is passed. The Republic of Ireland spent many bloody years trying to cut its ties with the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland. It is odd that citizens of the Irish Republic can come to this country and vote in our elections, but a French citizen who might come to live, for example, in Chelmsford could not—quite rightly—vote in either local or general elections, and nor could an American citizen or any citizen not of British nationality. Why, then, are we perpetuating that anomaly in the Bill?

Mr. Mallon: I am rather loth to believe that I am hearing what I am hearing. In effect, is the hon. Gentleman saying that people who live in this country, are domiciled in this country and fulfil the residential qualifications of the electoral legislation should not be allowed to vote because they originated from the Republic of Ireland? That seems to be exactly what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The only qualification for voting here or in the Republic of Ireland is that one is resident in the relevant country on the qualifying date. The hon. Gentleman's remarks smack of racism.

Mr. Burns: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman thinks that, because my remarks were in no way meant to imply it. The hon. Gentleman is wrong. If one wants to vote in local or national elections in England, it is not a matter of residency; it is a matter of citizenship. One must be a British citizen to vote in British or Irish elections. The Irish are the only exceptions. That is the point I was making.

Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. The only qualification is that of residence on 15 September of the year involved. British people living in the Republic of Ireland are automatically included on the electoral register if they are resident on the same date. There is a clear distinction between the residential qualification and citizenship.

Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on that point. If we exclude British and Irish people, any person who does not have British or Irish nationality cannot vote in British mainland local elections or general elections. It is sad that that Bill should extend that anomaly so that, when the Bill is on the statute book, citizens of the Republic of Ireland can vote in local government elections in Northern Ireland, just as they can vote in local government and general elections on mainland Britain, and they have done so for many years. That is wrong. It is only in recent years that the Republic of Ireland has changed its law so that British citizens can go to southern Ireland and vote in elections there. That anomaly has only just been rectified by the southern Irish Government.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on wisely seeking to enforce the main thrust of the Bill—the declaration—through civil procedures rather than through criminal procedures. It will avoid making martyrs of those who seek martyrdom for a cause, and it will effectively prevent terrorists or terrorist sympathisers having yet another platform on which to propagate their ugly and evil propaganda. It is another measure that ends a loophole that gave succour to terrorists and, once again, shows the Government's determination, with every possible measure in their armoury, to stamp out terrorism and terrorist sympathisers. I warmly applaud the Secretary of State for bringing such a measure before the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that the Front Benches will seek to catch my eye at about 20 minutes past nine. That is 56 minutes from now. I see five hon. Members, all of whom have sat conscientiously throughout the debate, seeking to catch my eye. I hope that they will all have a chance to speak. We can achieve that by using a little simple arithmetic.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Perhaps the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) does not realise that, during the last war, thousands of Irish people came to this country, joined our forces, and fought alongside people such as myself, and did so in various parts of the world. I am aware of that. Therefore, I have never had an argument about Irish citizens living in this country and having the right to vote in our elections.

Mr. David Wilshire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heffer: No.
The leader of the Liberal party—or whatever it is called nowadays; I cannot be sure—said that we who raise historical issues are living in the past. I have frequently heard that remark made also by some of my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench. If we do not understand or seek to understand the past, we cannot possibly understand the present or have a view for the future. We cannot understand the discussion we are having tonight and will have tomorrow on Northern Irish matters unless we understand what has happened in Ireland.
Many hon. Members have good arguments. No one will deny that. There is a measure of justice on both sides of the House. But history proves one thing, and that is that we in this country dominated Ireland and subjected Ireland to our rule, and the six counties were then created. That is the basis of the trouble in Ireland. As long as the border remains, no matter what is done, what arguments are put, or what efforts are made, there will always be periods of trouble. The trouble will die down, and it will go away for a period, but it will come back again. That is the logic of the situation in Ireland. It does not make me happy; it makes me very unhappy.
I sit on Opposition Benches with, believe it or not, Northern Ireland Members who are Ulster Unionists. I find them pleasant people. We can get on well together —I like them—but they do not agree with me on every political point. I find people in front of me who are in the SDLP. I like them also, but it does not solve the political problem. It is not a matter of liking or disliking. We in this country must begin to think seriously—we have not done so until now—how we can solve the problem of Northern Ireland to the satisfaction of the peoples of the whole of Ireland.
The first woman elected to the House of Commons was a Sinn Feiner. Her name was Countess Markievicz. She did not come to the House, but she was elected. She could come here, but she probably would not have taken the oath. That is why she did not come. She would not accept what we accept.
The Bill is a strange document. Schedule 2, part I, refers to
acts of terrorism (that is to say, violence for political ends) connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland.
Imagine that nobody has ever conducted any violence in relation to the problems of Northern Ireland. Do hon. Members know that, until the uprising in 1916, when the leaders were shot and killed, there had not been a great deal of sympathy? Afterwards, there was massive sympathy. At the next election, the Sinn Feiners won a majority and then declared their independence. What were they faced with then? A revolt from the Ulstermen of Northern Ireland, the Protestants who for their own reasons under Carson said, "We shall fight." There was violence for political ends on both sides. Therefore, let us be honest about this and not run away from the realities of what happened in Ireland.
I do not understand why we must have a declaration. If every hon. Member were told that they had to sign a declaration that we had at no time believed in violence to achieve political ends or else we could not stand for election to this House or local government, some of my hon. Friends would laugh. What about the Maquis and those sent to assist them bomb and terrorise the Germans when they were in occupation? Many innocent people,


French and others, who were not involved were killed. What were they? Terrorists? Hitler and company said that they were terrorists and had them put down as terrorists.
We have only to look at the House, for God's sake. We sit in a House which exists today with its democratic rights because the British people took up arms to ensure that Parliament was created. Hon. Members talk nonsense. The Tory party arose from the struggles from 1640 onwards, so let us not pretend that it has always repudiated violence for political ends. That is absolute utter nonsense.
We should not pass easily a Bill which introduces a declaration or what I would call, an oath. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) was absolutely right. What about the Dissenters? Where would they have stood? I am an Anglican so I would have been on the right side. My lot were the ones telling the Roman Catholics and Dissenters, "You do what we tell you or you will not get the rights you expect."
That is what happened. I would have been all right because my family has been Anglican for hundreds of years, but what about all those who were not? What about the Baptists, the Congregationalists, the Quakers and all those who were told that they must accept this or they would not get the rights they expected?

Mr. Wilshire: rose—

Mr. Heffer: No, I shall not give way. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have made it clear that you want short speeches and I am not going to make a long speech. All right, then.

Mr. Wilshire: I am a Dissenter. Can the hon. Gentleman remind me when my Church, the Methodist Church, took up arms and fought a battle to demand the right to sit in the House?

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman had better start to learn something about history. The Methodists came later and broke away from the Anglican Church. They were not involved in the 1640 uprising because they did not exist at that time.

Mr. McNamara: The Methodists were caught by the Test and Corporation Acts.

Mr. Heffer: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
We must get this into perspective. Hon. Members may have seen in The Independent today an interesting letter from a John A. Oliver who wrote:
In the 1940s local fire brigades in Ulster and their full-time auxiliaries were being converted into a type of national fire service. As the firemen and women were thus becoming servants of the Crown they had to swear an oath of allegiance …
Only a handful objected (about six out of a thousand, as I recall). They had to be sacked and I was sorry to see them go.
Just as I was beginning to preen myself a little on getting through this delicate affair with fewer objectors than my seniors had expected, many men and women gently deflated me by openly saying (in the informal "crack" after the formal business which is one of the attractive aspects of public life in Ulster) that they had sworn the oath with varying degrees of mental reservation."
Surely that puts the whole matter into perspective. Those standing for a council can happily swear the oath or accept the declaration. Many will not mean a word of it, so why do we have to have it?
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) talked marvellously at his party's conference, attacking the Prime Minister for attacking our civil liberties, but when a Bill is introduced that attacks civil liberties in part of the United Kingdom, he and his so-called party run away. That is my objection to them. They say that they are not concerned and they believe in the Bill. They are politically dishonest and are not serious about civil liberties. If they were, they would join us and vote against the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North was wrongly attacked. His case was a good one and because of that we believe that we should not only support the reasoned amendment but vote against the Bill. That is precisely what some of us intend to do tonight.
This Bill concerns our civil liberties. Once we allow civil liberties to be attacked in Northern Ireland, if only in a minor way, it will come over here. We have seen that already. I do not trust this Government. Sooner or later people who dissent politically will also be faced with a declaration.

Mr. Burns: Rubbish.

Mr. Heffer: We have had this rubbish before, but that is what happens under an authoritarian Government and this Government are authoritarian.
For that if for no other reason I ask my hon. Friends to vote against the Bill and to defend basic civil liberties.

Mr. Stephen Day: One observation I have of this debate—I have missed only one speech—is the loss of the so-called bi-partisan approach which was valuable in our discussions on Northern Ireland. Where has it gone? Irrespective of our political difficulties, terrorism in a free society threatens everyone, whatever our political beliefs. We have a greater interest in unity of purpose against terrorism than in minor details, and it is certainly minor details to which the Opposition have objected today. It is far more important that we have a unity of purpose against terrorism. That unity prevailed under the Labour Government, who were supported by the then official Opposition.
Evidence of a breakdown in our bipartisan approach came from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who said that we were driving people out of the political process. Where in the Bill are we doing that? No one is being proscribed or stopped from standing for election. That is absolute nonsense and a complete misinterpretation of the Bill. He said that Sinn Fein could take comfort from this measure. It will take far more comfort from some of the comments from the Opposition Benches than from anything in the Bill.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (M r. Benn) called it a dangerous little Bill. I do not see him here now, but I cannot understand why he feels that the Bill is more dangerous than the people with whom it is designed to deal. Surely they are the greater threat to our democratic institutions.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said that we should define terrorism. It is quite clear to me what terrorism is. It is those who take up arms against their state although legitimate democratic means exist for them to express their views freely. He quoted examples such as the French Resistance. There were few human rights in France at the time when the Maquis took up arms


against the German forces. How can the right hon. Gentleman equate that with the situation in Northern Ireland? Northern Ireland is a democratic state within the United Kingdom and people can express their views freely. The Bill is designed to ensure that those views can be expressed.
Why do Labour Members seem to imply this evening —I am sure it is not their intention—that they are seeking to paint the Government as the bad guys while making little reference to the real bad guys, the terrorists on either side of the political divide? That is the real issue and I am sorry that the Opposition have not been able to address it. I am sure that it was not their intention, but the viewpoint expressed by the Opposition might lead members of the IRA to surmise that the election of a Labour Government would assist them in their aim of uniting Ireland by force. We need a united front against terrorism in Northern Ireland and I appeal to the Opposition on that.
As for the signing of declarations, the Government have no intention of introducing such a measure in the rest of the United Kingdom but if I were asked to sign a declaration stating that I renounced terrorism and violence to promote my views, I should happily sign it. I cannot understand any member of a democratic institution having any difficulty about signing such a declaration. I hope that the Opposition's position on this will be explained by Opposition Members who have not yet spoken.
I know that other hon. Members want to speak in this debate, so I shall curtail my remarks with one final comment. The declaration is not a declaration against republicanism, which is an honourable political belief, provided that people do not seek to promote it through violence. The declaration is not against unionism or any other political position in Northern Ireland, but it is a limitation on fear, intimidation, violence and, even more importantly, on those who excuse violence. No democrat should ever, by implication or directly, seek to give succour or support to the terrorists and those who want to promote their views through violence.

Mr. William Ross: Normally, I have to stand here and condemn the fact that Northern Ireland legislation is being put through by order. It is a rare pleasure to be able to stand here and say that I welcome the procedure, as I can this evening. The legislation is being introduced through a Bill that we can amend—or at least try to—and through which we can explore the Government's intentions and discuss whether the measures will be effective in achieving those intentions. It will be possible for us to educate Ministers about the reality of life in the council chambers of Northern Ireland.
The House will be told—the Minister should already know—that some of my friends and colleagues who are members of councils in Northern Ireland have noticed that Sinn Fein members take careful notes of what is said when people are critical of the murders committed by the IRA and the actions of Sinn Fein and they wonder whether those people are taking careful notes to help the welfare of the Unionist who has made his views clear.
Hon. Members will be told in Committee of the remarks that are sometimes made against Unionist council

members by Sinn Fein members in quiet corners of car parks. The knowledge of the House will be greatly increased by this educational process. I hope that the Bill will be considered by a Committee of the whole House, so that all Northern Ireland Members can take part in the debate and the Northern Ireland voice will be well represented.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) pointed out that Sinn Fein acts under the direction of the IRA. The House must be aware that in established states, military forces act under the direction of politicians. The IRA, like all terrorist organisations, has turned that democratic position on its head because it directs what its political mouthpieces shall say and do. It is my long-held view that those political mouthpieces can be trusted only when they themselves are members of the IRA.
The Opposition have not mentioned their amendment very frequently this evening. The amendment says that it
declines to give a Second Reading".
We have been told earlier that the Opposition decline so much that they will not vote for the Bill. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) will follow his voice with his feet through the Lobby and what the consequences will be if he dares to do that.
The amendment also says that the Bill is unnecessary because of existing legislation to deal with incitement to violence. I assume that if the Bill were unnecessary, it would not have been introduced. The fact that it has been implies that the present legislation is not sufficient to deal with the situation. The amendment is therefore factually incorrect.
The amendment then says that the Bill will
increase sectarian conflict in Local Government".
I should have thought that the main reason for sectarian conflict—which is really terrorist conflict—

Mr. Flannery: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ross: No. We are short of time and I want two other hon. Members, who have waited all afternoon, to have their chance to speak.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman has missed out part of the amendment which explains what it says.

Mr. Ross: No doubt that point can be explained later by the Opposition Front Bench spokesman.
The IRA mouthpieces make sectarian conflict deeper by their mere presence and attitude. The amendment also says that the Bill will
place the judiciary in an invidious position".
Has anyone in the House forgotten the dead judges? Did they die because the IRA loved them? They became targets because they were applying the laws of the realm. That is the reality. Their position is as dangerous as it can be and the Bill will not make it worse. The amendment says that the Bill will not heal the divisions in Northern Irish society.

Mr. Terry Patchett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ross: No, because other hon. Members wish to speak.
The reality is that the divisions in this society are made deeper by the misery that is caused by the activities of the IRA and by the failure of their spokesmen to condemn the murder—pure and brutal murder—of many people in the province of Ulster. That has gone on for many years.


The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) told us that one cannot defeat nationalist movements by such means, but he did not tell the House how nationalist movements are to be defeated if we do not try to stamp out violence. Nationalist movements that have free access to the electoral process and the right freely to express their point of view should not then resort to violence.

Mr. Patchett: rose—

Mr. Ross: No, I will not give way. I have already made that clear. The hon. Gentleman can have his say another time.
The reality is also that there is a British population in Northern Ireland and they have not been defeated by IRA violence in 20 years. Surely those people will not start being defeated by the IRA now or in the future.
The Bill is essentially a timid step in the right direction. When I was considering what I would say if I were lucky enough to be called this evening—which, of course, I have been—I thought back to the time when the D-day landings were being planned, when there was a lot of courage, resolution and long-term planning. The soldiers, sailors and airmen were the cutting edge of Government policy on that day and thereafter until the final victory was won in Europe. Theirs was not to reason why, but to accept that there was a general need to win the war and to dispose of the Nazi influence on the world.
However, here the Government are making local government councillors—who support the British connection—the cutting edge in the fight to get the IRA out of the council chambers. Frankly, on some occasions the Government will be inviting them to commit suicide. That is the reality and that is why the Government should take on the job themselves in the ways that have already been suggested.
We are here to reason why—that is the duty of Members of this House. However, we are also here to reason why the Government will not accept that duty, which I believe is one that they should gladly shoulder. We will go into this later in our proceedings on the Bill because it is something that we must thrash out and something on which we should make the Government change their mind.
My concern is how effective the Bill will be as presently constituted. Certain things in the Bill do little and there are certain things that should have been included in it because the IRA's present electoral success and terrorist experience did not just happen—

Mr. Patchett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ross: No, I am not giving way.
It grew over the years—and it grew as a result of the Government's policy. If we are to cut down the IRA's strength and its electoral support, we should try to undermine the IRA politically as well as defeating it militarily. No doubt military solutions will be discussed tomorrow but today we are dealing with the political solutions. If we are ever to start understanding what must be done against the IRA, we must understand that, for the IRA, political victory would be a united Ireland.
It is only when hope of a united Ireland recedes as a practical possibility that those who seek it will be prepared to consider their future in the United Kingdom and play a constructive part in a Northern Ireland that is securely within that structure. If we are to weaken the IRA politically, it is absolutely essential that we cut the number

of votes that it receives and the number of seats that it wins. Seeing its hope of ultimate victory recede will undermine the IRA quite a bit. However, that will have to be followed by action rather than words on the part of the Government.
There is another measure that has not been mentioned in the Bill, but which should have been. One of the best ways of getting a minority elected is to use the proportional voting system. That helps all minorities, including vicious minorities who can use pressure. The major parties in this House know that; that is why it is not used in any elections in this part of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North drew attention to the by-election results in Belfast, West. The reality is that if there were a simple majority system in Northern Ireland, operated on a ward-by-ward basis, there would be few places in which Sinn Fein would have any real hope of getting elected. Until this House faces up to that and takes the steps which flow naturally from that knowledge, Sinn Fein will always get quite a lot of its people elected in hard-line areas. Those who deny that are simply displaying their ignorance of the voting patterns in Northern Ireland.
We must get rid of the system of proportional representation and the sooner the better. It will pay rich dividends in reducing the number of votes given to Sinn Fein and the number of Sinn Fein representatives who are elected. Nobody need tell me that Sinn Fein has only one elected Member here, because although that it is true I believe that he will eventually lose his seat if the SDLP pulls its socks up.
I welcome also the standing list being the same for all elections. I have been asking questions about that since as long ago as 1981, and possibly before. Absent voters should always be on the same list for all elections. There should be the same standing list for those who are permanently incapacitated and who cannot get out. I welcome that provision.
Many legislative changes are listed in the Bill. I wish that all the relevant legislation had been printed because that would have made the Bill more intelligible to all of us. We would not have had to search back—as we always do —through a dozen other Bills to find out exactly what is going on.
I am surprised to see that the Government have finally been forced to the point where they have to define what terrorism is. Time and time again I have sat in the House and heard hon. Members declaim against "mindless terrorist violence" and have winced every time that I have heard that. Quite honestly, there is no such thing as a "mindless" terrorist act. Sometimes terrorists do it wrong, but their actions are always planned and thought out. The terrorists always intend to have some advantage from it. Therefore, I am glad that the Government have now been converted to my point of view and believe that all terrorist acts have a political objective. Everyone in Northern Ireland will welcome that.
I have a serious objection to the extension of voting rights to foreigners. Quite a lot has been said about that this evening. The number does not matter to me. Some are Unionists—at least I hope that they are Unionists—because my rector and his wife will now get the vote and I hope that I can persuade the reverend gentleman and his good lady to cast their votes for me in the next election if


I am fortunate enough to be the candidate for Londonderry, East. Although not all who will gain by this measure are Nationalists, naturally some are.
My objection is to the principle of foreigners voting in this country. When we go to the United States we do not expect to be given the vote there. We would have to become citizens of that country first. That is what the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) did not understand. In most countries—in fact, in practically all —the right to vote and the right to elect a Government is tied to citizenship in that nation. That is a sound principle and one that we should accept right across the board.
I cannot understand why that principle has been consistently ignored in so far as voting rights are granted to Irish citizens in the United Kingdom generally. That is wrong. Many hundreds—perhaps millions—of citizens of the Irish Republic who are in this country vote here. Those people have deserted their nation in droves—tens of thousands have left the country over the years. That desertion reflects the lack of success of Irish republicanism in creating the viable entity of the island of Ireland.
Those people who have fled the Communist states of eastern Europe have been praised for getting out and have been held up as proof of a failed system of government in those nations. Irish Nationalists do not apply the same principle to the Republic—nor do supporters of the Republic— but it is valid. If it is valid for those who get out of East Germany and move to West Germany, it is valid for those who leave the Irish Republic, where there are no barriers, and come to the United Kingdom, where at least they can earn a decent living and send it back to their families. I am glad that the United Kingdom has done so well. I regret that the Irish Republic is not more successful because it must mean the end of many dreams for those who proclaimed that that nation would be heaven on earth.
I welcome these first timid steps, but I hope that they will go much further because more steps must be taken.

Mr. David Wilshire: I want to make it absolutely clear that I totally support the principles underlined in the Bill and I believe that that support is shared by the overwhelming majority of the British people. It is an utter disgrace that the Labour party lacks the guts to defend local democracy and to support the Government today.
It is blindingly obvious to me that all elected representatives in a democracy, whether in Ulster, elsewhere in the United Kingdom or anywhere in the world, must defend that democracy and must denounce terrorism; otherwise they, as leaders of their communities, are party to attempts to overthrow their society and to undermine the democracy that they have been elected to support.
If I had any doubts about that, they were swept away earlier when the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) spoke. I did not catch his words verbatim, but I believe that I heard him say that he knew of no one who believed in death and destruction as a way forward. The British people and I know of such people—the IRA—and I know nothing about them which supports the view of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. Death and destruction

appear to be the way in which the IRA seeks to move forward and change society. I have no hesitation in denouncing that approach to the future of our country and no one in the United Kingdom should have any such hesitation.
Many people have suggested that the Bill undermines democratic rights and that it seeks to restrict freedom of speech. That is absurd. The right to stand in elections in Ulster is not affected by the Bill. Even if it were, the principle of disqualification is already established in British law. It does not weaken democracy if one says that the insane cannot stand for election, nor does it weaken democracy if one says that a bankrupt should not be allowed to stand in an election.
The freedom to say or do what one likes is an essential of local government, but councillors are limited in what they can say or do. Councillors in the United Kingdom cannot libel one another, nor can they improperly spend public money, so the principle of limiting what councillors can say or do is already established. Sad though it is, the action being proposed today in principle is necessary and it has my support. I am pleased that the Government have said in the Bill that they believe that it is proper to require councillors to undertake to do or not to do certain things if elected. At some stage in the future, in another Bill, I hope that the Government will say it once again. I hope that they will also make it compulsory for councillors to undergo training and to agree to do so as a condition of election.
The Bill has my support in principle, but I am worried about some of its contents. First, the Bill limits itself to Ulster and by so doing makes Northern Ireland yet again more different from the rest of the United Kingdom. I am convinced that Ulster is an integral part of the United Kingdom and that the great majority of its citizens are as proud as I am to say that we are British. Every new law which singles out Northern Ireland makes it harder to achieve that unity of nations that is so important and to give Northern Ireland what it has every right to expect —the same system of local government as the rest of us enjoy.
Because I support the principles of the Bill, I urge the Government to consider extending it to the entire United Kingdom. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), I would have no hesitation in signing such a declaration, and no one anywhere in the country should be in the least bit worried about it.
My second worry has also been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross). An error has been repeated in clause 1(1)(b)(ii) by continuing to allow some foreigners to vote in our elections. It does not just repeat a mistake—it goes further and allows more Irish citizens to vote, for among the 10,000 who have been mentioned must be a preponderance of Irish citizens. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford thought that it was odd; I believe that it is absolutely wrong and should be stopped. I have always believed that it is wrong to give certain foreigners special privileges here. After all, in almost no other country are we given special privileges. —nor should we expect them.
The events of the past few days have reinforced my belief. It is utter hypocrisy to refuse to hand over one of our most wanted terrorists while being only too willing to hop across the border and buy cheap petrol, claim our


welfare benefits, set up home here and demand the right to vote. It is as though the Dublin policy has become to take with one hand and to punch us in the teeth with the other.
My third point relates to something that the Bill does not say. Nowhere in the Bill is there an attempt to repeal that part of our legislation which says that if a councillor does not turn up for six months his seat should be declared vacant. I am delighted that that is not to be changed. It should apply in Westminster, too. The electors of Belfast, West have no voice here, and more than 70 per cent. of those electors did not vote for the terrorist who could be here if he wished—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make such references to that person, whether he is sitting here or not. The hon. Gentleman is also going beyond the bounds of the Bill. I hope that he will return to it.

Mr. Wilshire: My argument is that the Bill should extend to all elections in Northern Ireland and to the rest of the United Kingdom the provision that if councillors do not occupy their seats for six months their seats are declared vacant.
I welcome the fact that the Government have acted, and I am happy to support the principles of the Bill, but I regret that such action has been necessary in our democracy. I am convinced that the Bill does not go far enough in some respects, and that it tackles some issues in a less than ideal way. I pledge my support for the Government's efforts to end the tragedy in Northern Ireland, and I commend them for deciding to act on these principles. When the Bill goes to Committee, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will produce amendments to meet the reservations that I have expressed today.

Mr. George Galloway: We have heard today the authentic voice of the Tory party in England, in the speech of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and in several others, towards the people of Ireland. Tomorrow the Irish media will reflect some of the bile that is clearly felt by some Conservative Members against the people of Ireland, and I have no doubt that they will weigh that in the balance when next considering the requests that the Government make of them from time to time.
Before coming to the main burden of my remarks, may I refer to the outrageous speech by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who I understand still considers himself to be a Liberal. He launched a shocking, gratuitous, illiberal attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) when he was not in his place. I presume that the hon. Gentleman did not give notice that he would do so. Not only did it fly in the face of everything that the Liberal party previously stood for on the Irish question, but I suspect that it went more to the need to make a pitch for the constituency of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) than for any consideration of the questions that are before us. I oppose the measure, and I shall vote against it.

Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman will know that in the heat of debate one cannot always be certain that hon. Members mentioned will be present. The hon. Gentleman is very good on insults about my speech. Would he care to pick up any of the points made by his hon. Friend the

Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and debate them as I did instead of confining himself to insults of the sort that he has been making?

Mr. Galloway: It appears that my remarks stung home. I can now understand why 60 Liberals found it necessary to found a new—or is it an old?—Liberal party at the weekend. The departures from Liberalism by the leader of the once Liberal party make the reason clear. I shall deal with some of the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, although I have less time than he and I hope he will bear that in mind.
I intend to vote against Second Reading but not because I support terrorism, which is the indiscriminate use of violence against innocent people for political purposes. I certainly do not support terrorism. I make no bones about it: the time has come for Britain to go from Ireland. But that is not the reason for my intention to vote against Second Reading. The Bill strikes against the democratic theory and practice of our country and is yet another palliative being applied to the critical malaise which is a central problem in British life. Not only will the Bill not have the effect that its authors claim for it, but its application is part of a process that is diminishing all of us.
Like many hon. Members who have spoken, I am a little uneasy about oaths or declarations. There is something slightly medieval about them and their use in a modern democracy. It is utterly wrong in principle to require men and women to swear something that is not in their hearts. That is what we shall do if we press on with this measure. With the assistance of the excellent Library, I have been studying the 18th century struggle against the so-called 39 articles. That struggle was led by the great parliamentarian that I have quoted before in the House, Charles James Fox, a true Liberal in the finest traditions.
Those 39 articles were oaths required from dissenters from the established Church that they fully supported the established Church in all its works, liturgy and relationship to the state. They had to swear such oaths before they could be given jobs or permission to speak from pulpits or fulfil public duties in this country. Fox declared himself to be
a friend to universal toleration".
He argued that insistence upon these oaths when the state knew full well that the dissenters had no alternative to signing them and did not believe a word of what they were swearing meant that those being diminished most were the Crown, on whom the oath was taken, and the state, which required men to swear that which they did not believe.
This measure is also wrong in theory because. as has been teased out in the debate, very few hon. Members could say that they have an unequivocal attitude to all violence in pursuit of political objectives. Only a true pacifist in the House—there are few, if any, of them—could say that he has an unequivocal attitude to that. As with hon. Members, if I had been around in the 1930s and old enough to do so, I would have gone to Spain to fight for political objectives, to defend the Spanish republic. I would have fought in the last war to help defeat Hitler's Fascism.
Many Conservative Members support the use of violence for political objectives. In Afghanistan they support the Mujaheddin. They support such violence in Angola by their support for UNITA, and they support it in Nicaragua by their unequivocal support for the Contras. A Contra leader was touted around the


Conservative party conference a few months ago. It is hypocrisy to require oaths, imposed by the majority in this House on Northern Ireland, that are based on ideas that are commonplace about other countries and other times.
This proposal is wrong in democratic practice, for if we know that those taking the oath do not mean what they are saying, what does it profit us to make them say it? What is gained by making men and women lie before they can seek elected office? Does any hon. Member believe that the electoral fortunes of these councillors will be affected by this? Sinn Fein regularly polls between 85,000 and 110,000 votes in the six counties. How many of the voters are going to the polls blissfully unaware of the relationship between Sinn Fein and the IRA? It cannot be gainsaid that these councillors are elected in the first place because enough electors in Northern Ireland are voting for them and for no other reason.
We may not like the message that is thus delivered to us by those 100,000 citizens, but we shall gain nothing by trying to bar the door to the messenger by prescribing oaths designed to wish him away. We cannot sweep this critical Irish problem under the carpet of oaths, nor are we doing it justice by the succession of cosmetic stunts that have issued forth from the Government since the Prime Minister's edict in the summer.
That brings me to the last reason why I shall vote against Second Reading. The Bill is part of a process whose core is Britain's Irish problem, which is steadily diminishing civil liberties and the democratic process in this country as a whole. These proposals—the broadcasting ban that we discussed a few weeks ago, the abolition of the centuries old right to silence, the Prevention of Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Act, the burgeoning of the secret state, and the polishing of the secret state's machinery in Northern Ireland—are all in their own way leading us down the dismal route towards what we are becoming, the poor man's third-rate democracy in Europe.
Britain is paying a high price for its presence in Ireland through the lives of our young service men, many of them only teenagers, and through the treasure—billions of pounds of it—being expended from the Exchequer to maintain British rule. I believe that when history comes to be written it will be seen that perhaps the highest price that we have paid for maintaining our rule in Ireland is the extent to which our democracy has been steadily eroded.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I do not think that anyone can complain on this occasion that there has not been sufficient time for a full and comprehensive debate on Northern Ireland. It is often alleged that we debate Northern Ireland business at an inappropriate time of day and that insufficient time is allowed. The temper of the House today shows that if sufficient time is available we can discuss these highly charged and contentious issues in a manner more appropriate to this Parliament.
I appreciate that the Secretary of State tempted the bounds of order in his long opening speech. I shall try not to do the same myself. He gave us a broad-brush picture of the Government's approach to the problems of Northern Ireland and placed this legislation in the context of the overall Government approach to Northern Ireland. If I recall what he said properly, he referred to the need for

fairness and justice, to the need for an effective response to terrorism and to the need to protect the rights of the community.
I think that I speak for all my parliamentary colleagues when I say that those are shared aspirations. They are not aspirations associated simply with one part of this House —they are shared by all right hon. and hon. Members no matter where in the House they sit—but the essence of the Labour party view and that of the SDLP is that the legislation does nothing to advance those aspirations. On the contrary, we believe that it fails to address the essential problems and in many ways will make those shared aspirations more difficult to fulfil. That is our basic charge against the Government.
No comments from the Opposition Front Bench are designed to offer succour to the advocates of terrorism or to the terrorists in the north of Ireland, but we must be absolutely clear when discussing issues in this House that we get the approach right. That approach must be designed to attack the root causes of the problems of terrorism and the reasons for the substantial electoral support for the supporters of violence. Unfortunately, this Bill and other hasty proposals introduced by the Government a few weeks ago have done nothing to address those essential points.
It is also not without significance that, with the exception of a few Government loyalists who obviously have an earnest desire to be members of the Committee and to ensure that the Government have a majority on it, there was a lukewarm response to the efficacy of the proposals. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) described the legislation as a limp, lukewarm, lifeless measure. While I do not agree with his conclusion on the need to strengthen the legislation, the way that he describes the Bill is apt and many hon. Members share his view.
Not only is the Bill limp, lukewarm and lifeless, but as the hon. Member for Belfast, East said, it will be ineffective. People who have carried out acts of terrorism and those who support terrorism will not be put off signing the declaration by the necessity to lie. They will wilfully and willingly sign it and ignore any consequences that may arise. I have great sympathy with the Government's dubiety in leaving the initiative to initiate prosecutions to the individual rather than the state taking responsibility for initiating prosecutions. There is cant and hyprocrisy in that part of the Government's argument which seeks to explain why the responsibility should be the individual's and not the state's.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the leader of the Social and Liberal Democrats—or whatever they call themselves at the moment—spent a great deal of time criticising my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), but very little time outlining the reasons why his party, which was noted for standing out against such measures in the past, is giving the Government full-blooded support for this legislation. I found it difficult to take the hon. Member for Yeovil's allegations of bias in favour of one section of the community in Northern Ireland on the part of the parliamentary Labour party and in particular its principal spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North.
Labour party policy, the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North and my own position are quite clear. We do not seek to differentiate


between one section of the community and another in Northern Ireland. We seek to ensure an even-handed approach with no discrimination against any part of the community in Northern Ireland. The policies that we support and the policies that we advance are designed to ensure that all members in the North of Ireland are treated equally in social and economic terms. We are certainly not biased in favour of one particular sector of the community.

Mr. Ashdown: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read my speech tomorrow, because I did not accuse the Labour party of bias. I said that the Labour party should have a care because many people are hearing the speeches of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and others who I recognise have to put their own views and those of the Labour party.

Mr. Galloway: The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) did say that.

Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman, like others, can read the record tomorrow. I say that they should have a care because it now appears to many that it will be seen as biased, always in favour of the Nationalists. We frequently hear that the Labour party is opposed to the Government on this, but we do not hear what they are in favour of and that gives such an impression. The hon. Gentleman's views will certainly be read, and they are reassuring to me.

Mr. Marshall: If I misunderstood what the hon. Gentleman said, I apologise for the remarks that I made, but it is my clear recollection that he accused my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North of bias in favour of the Nationalist community in the North of Ireland. I wrote it down at the time, although I may have misheard or misunderstood him. I wrote down, "Bias to the Nationalists in the North of Ireland."
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) also displayed a lukewarm attitude towards the legislation. He used a different form of words, calling it "a timid step in the right direction." Knowing the hon. Gentleman, I dread to think what would be vigorous steps in the right direction. Nevertheless, he said that there was a need to defeat the supporters of violence—Sinn Fein, I presume —politically.
My understanding of defeating someone politically is that one enters into a debate, and if one lives in a democracy eventually the argument will be decided by the ballot box; but that is not what the hon. Gentleman suggested. He suggested that, as Sinn Fein was winning seats under the existing electoral system, one should alter the rules of the electoral game in order to defeat them politically—in other words, to defeat them not by democratic means but by gerrymandering.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the pursuit of such policies and initiatives led to the roots of the present trouble in the north of Ireland. We all have a vested interest in ensuring that the root causes of the present troubles are removed so that the basis for the views of terrorists and supporters of terrorism are eliminated once and for all.

Mr. William Ross: I may be wrong, but it was always my view that gerrymandering meant that electoral boundaries were deliberately drawn so as to give an electoral advantage to one party as against another. If the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), the spokesman for the Labour party, is now saying that the

first-past-the-post system is of itself in principle gerrymandering, may I take it that the Labour party is now totally committed to STV—the single transferable vote—in the United Kingdom elections?

Mr. Marshall: I was making no such allegations. Hon. Members will know that there are differing views in my own party about the kind of electoral system that should be pursued.
In a democracy, political change must come as a consequence of discussion and through the ballot box. It is in our interests to ensure that violence and its perpetrators do not succeed. We have a right to expect, and a duty to ensure, that those involved in violence for political ends are caught and sentenced with the fullest vigour of the criminal law. It is essential, however, that the perpetrators of violence are regarded as criminals. Many of them are pretty nasty individuals, but they are criminals nevertheless. The Government Chief Whip nods in agreement with that—I hope that he will nod with the same vigour when I make my next point. We must ensure that the action that we take does not bestow on terrorists and the groups who support them implicit recognition that their acts are different from those of any other criminals. If we fall into that trap, the consequences will be counter-productive, provide succour to the terrorists and enhance their claims to legitimacy in the eyes of some international opinion.
Unfortunately—I hope to have the Government Chief Whip's consent for this—the Government have fallen into that trap in recent months. Following the despicable acts of violence earlier this year, the Government, and especially the Prime Minister, decided that they had to be seen to be taking some action, no matter how ill conceived or badly put together it was. As a consequence of that hasty over-reaction, censorship of television broadcasting was introduced. The non-incriminating right of silence in a police station or a court has been removed, and we now have the third part of the trilogy—the declaration on violence.

Mr. Tom King: The hon. Gentleman says that the Bill is a hasty and ill-conceived reaction. It is the outcome of a consultation document that was published a year ago, but matters were under consideration well before that. The hon. Gentleman cannot associate the Bill with a reaction to the events of the past couple of months.

Mr. Marshall: The Secretary of State knows that I always regard him as a reasonable man, and I hesitate to cast doubt on his statement. It is not without significance that, after the Prime Minister became involved. the Bill was pushed to the top of the political agenda.
It is no wonder that terrorists and their supporters are jubilant. The introduction of censorship and the further curtailment of civil liberties is, in their eyes, vindication for their appalling actions. In propaganda terms, the Government hand them what they could never hope to obtain militarily—a scent and sense of victory.
I understand the feeling of revulsion that many ordinary, decent people in the North of Ireland and the remainder of the United Kingdom feel when they see the supporters of violence in positions of elected responsibility. We should never forget—this was the essential point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—that they were elected. Many ordinary, decent people living in the North of Ireland—the people


for whom the legislation is supposed to be drawn—voted for them, not by coercion, because there is no coercion in the secrecy of the ballot booth, but willingly. No declaration or proscription will remove that electoral support. It can be undermined only by an acknowledgment of the Nationalist aspirations and a vigorous pursuit of polices designed to remove social and economic discrimination against the minority community.
I have recognised previously, and willingly recognise again, the Government's determination to pursue policies towards this end. I again emphasise that only in that way can the root causes of the present troubles be eliminated and the basis of the electoral support for the advocates of violence be removed. In this context, the declaration is an irrelevance. It is a sop which will not contribute one jot to the progress of peace or reconciliation. [Interruption.] I am always amazed that the silent members of the Government deem it necessary on occasions to be involved in idle chatter. Perhaps the silent servers of the House could be reminded of the need for silence.
I note with interest, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) has done, that in an article on 25 November in The Daily Telegraph the Under-Secretary of State set out his views—and, I presume, the Government's—on the need for the Bill. I promise not to repeat the points and sentences uttered by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, but the Under-Secretary of State concluded his article by stating:
We cannot tolerate the exploitation of elective office by those who proclaim their support for terrorism without giving law-abiding councillors the right to challenge that".
I believe that we would all say amen to that. One does not resolve the problem by having the declaration. It must be done through normal democratic methods—through discussion and, eventually, the ballot box. To repeat a point which I made, one does not remove the basis of support for the terrorists and their supporters by having the declaration.
In the same article, the Under-Secretary of State set out two reasons why the state will not initiate prosecutions. First—this is a gem—the hon. Gentleman argued that, if it were left to the DPP or the Attorney-General, it would call into question the political impartiality of the Law Officers. What does he think will happen to the political impartiality of the judges once they begin to consider these cases? Does he believe that both communities will accept that judges are impartial if they have to deal with these cases? That is nonsense. Inevitably, this will further damage the role of the courts in the eyes of both communities.
Secondly, the Minister's comment on the ability of witnesses to withstand intimidation was a cop-out. If that will apply if the state brings a prosecution, it will apply even more if a lone individual brings one. This again illustrates the cant and hypocrisy of the Government's position and implies tacit admission by the Government that the declaration will not work.
The Under-Secretary of State used expressions that seem to reveal surprise that his declaration was opposed. My final quotation from the Minister's statement is this:
But surprisingly, it"—
that is, the declaration—
has vociferous opponents, including the Labour Party and John Hume's SDLP".

I am sure that members of that party will be delighted to know that they belong to John Hume's SDLP. The next phrase should win a prize for someone:
and much fashionable 'liberal' opinion".
That is one for the record books. My understanding is that the use of the word "fashionable" is supposed to indicate a majority view of the word "liberal" but in case that point is lost the word "liberal" is put in inverted commas, so the meaning is doubly pejorative. Perhaps it is some new kind of grammar invented by the Under-Secretary.
The idea that the Government have advanced any substantive arguments in support of the Bill is fallacious. The Government's argument for the Bill, like the Minister's grammar, is flawed. The Bill will not work, it will not advance peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland; I urge the House to support the Opposition's reasoned amendment.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): May I begin in a not too partisan way by praising the speeches of many of my hon. Friends, particularly those of my hon. Friends the Members for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), for Cheadle (Mr. Day), for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) and for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), and that of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown).
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne felt that he was perhaps a little hard done by by my right hon. Friend who was a little concerned about our hon. Friend asking him a trick question. I had suggested to my right hon. Friend that he should be careful in replying because, in a way, there is a trick as this measure introduces residence qualifications in Northern Ireland which require people to have lived there for three months before they are entitled to vote, in contrast with the position here, where they have to be present on the specified date. That is because Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom with a land barrier, so we do not want people nipping across from another jurisdiction.
I must say to my hon. Friends the Members for Chelmsford and for Spelthorne that, although I accept and understand their concerns about the problems of voting in the United Kingdom and the measures that we are introducing to bring the two parts of the United Kingdom into line, I hardly think that stopping Irish people voting in the United Kingdom would be a way of improving Anglo-Irish relations. It is important that we bring the jurisdictions together.
In this decade, three councillors and two council employees have been killed by terrorists and one councillor has been shot and injured. Of Sinn Fein's 58 councillors, 11 have been convicted of terrorist-type offences and a further three have faced or are facing charges. Six other councillors have also received convictions for scheduled offences.
Almost everyone accepts that there is a major problem caused by those in the district councils of Northern Ireland who openly support violence. Most, although not all, of those are members of Sinn Fein. As the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) said:
those who pursue the so-called joint strategy of the ballot and the bullet are guilty of both hypocrisy and complete incompatability with a democracy."—[Official Report, 10 November 1987; Vol. 122, c. 157.]


In this debate the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) and others have stated the nature of the problem as they have found it in blunt terms, born of their experience in local government in Northern Ireland. The hon. Members for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and for South Down (Mr. McGrady)—who are on the other side of the political divide—would, with their experience of district councils, concede that there is a problem. Indeed, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said so during a recent debate.
Most people in Northern Ireland and many outside it agree that the problem exists. Few, however, agree upon the steps that we should take to deal with it. Some—the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) is one—argue for proscription. Almost everyone, at some stage, argues for something to be proscribed. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh has the UDA on his shopping list, but I do not know whether he intends to add Sinn Fein to it. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and his colleagues have repeatedly called for the proscription of Sinn Fein, but they have specifically excluded Loyalist organisations.
Whether Sinn Fein or the UDA is proscribed, a declaration will still be necessary for those who stand under different guises. Indeed, they have often stood under all sorts of guises. Selective proscription of individual organisations would be a nonsensical approach to the problem. It could not be made retrospective and councillors could claim that they were no longer members of the proscribed party. They could stand at elections under different party names. Therefore, even if proscription were ever to come about, there would still be a need for a declaration.
The very fact that the Government are accused by some hon. Members of going too far and by others of not going far enough shows the difficulty in achieving a correct balance between what is practicable and achievable and what is not. The measure is designed to deal with those who advocate violence once they are elected, but no more than that. It does not ban candidates because it is at elections that views can be canvassed. I know that the hon. Member for Yeovil has some doubts about that. However abhorrent to hon. Members, we believe that it is legitimate that candidates standing on a platform of violence should have some way of putting their views forward. Once the election is over, councillors must then abide by the political rules of a plural democracy; they must abide by the club.
The greatest concern of many hon. Members is that enforcement should be either by criminal prosecution brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions or by civil action brought by the Attorney-General. Most electoral law is enforced by civil means, and rightly so. If the witnesses are to be the main constituent of a case and the accused's peers—

Mr. Benn: The Minister has made an important statement—that when elected one has to abide by the rules of the club. He interpreted that to mean that someone could advocate a policy and be elected on it, but that once elected he could not continue to support that policy. Is that the rule of the club that the hon. Gentleman thinks to be equivalent to representative democracy?

Mr. Needham: Once someone is elected, he cannot say that if he loses a vote he will shoot people on their way home. He cannot advocate violence for political ends. That is wholly unacceptable.
The second point about whether the DPP or the Attorney-General brings the action—the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) picked me up on this point, and he is quite right—is that criminal cases and civil cases require different standards of proof. Only last week, there was the case of a rape victim who was awarded substantial civil damages, even though there had been no criminal prosecution. That is an example of the test in a civil action, which is the balance of probabilities succeeding, whereas the test of beyond reasonable doubt would not. I make no apology for that being the basis of civil actions being brought in such cases.
Thirdly, the Government are not in the business of lending terrorist supporters gratuitous propaganda points, as some Opposition Members seem to suggest. Whether an action is civil or criminal, if it is brought by the Attorney-General, it will be seen to have been instigated by the British Government. Furthermore, and most important, the Attorney-General has no capacity to monitor expressions of support for proscribed organisations or terrorism in Northern Ireland, and he would have to depend entirely on information given to him by others. Therefore, in our judgment, it is others who bring the actions.
I know that the argument is that those wishing to bring such actions may be deterred by cost or intimidation. As to intimidation, as I said, witnesses, rather than promoters, are most likely to be intimidated. Promoters can seek safety in numbers, or, no doubt in some instances, councils will bring actions.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman said that the Attorney-General is in no position to monitor certain matters. How is the RUC in a position to monitor, for example, incitement, the wearing of uniforms and all the other matters in the kernel of the Bill?

Mr. Needham: I shall refer to the hon. Gentleman's points later.
The key point is that the Attorney-General relies on the information given to him by those who will become witnesses in a case. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that they themselves should be the promoters of such cases. If the argument is that it will lead to intimidation—and that argument has been put forward—the intimidation of witnesses is the problem of Northern Ireland, not the intimidation of the promoters of a case.
To advocate that the declaration will fail because intimidation will make it impossible for witnesses to testify as applicants in cases is a counsel of total despair. I ask those who advance such an argument whether they have so little faith in the continuing operation of civil justice in Northern Ireland that they suppose that nobody will bring cases. As hon. Members from Northern Ireland know well, many actions have been brought in recent years. which show that such pessimism is ill-founded. I am sure that there are many brave and determined people in Northern Ireland who, if the advocates of violence breach their declarations, will bring such actions in future.
On costs, it is perfectly possible for applicants to claim legal aid against the usual criteria. Of course, if councils bring well-founded actions, it will be a charge on the rates.


The hon. Member for Yeovil asked me about parties and parties supporting councils. If parties support their councils in an action, that will no doubt be another way of getting around the cost problem.
Speaking at his annual conference last week, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) said of Sinn Fein and the IRA:
They are more Irish than the rest of us, they believe. They are the pure master race of Irish. They are the keepers of the holy grail of the nation. That deep seated attitude, married to their method, has all the hallmarks of undiluted fascism.
They have also the other hallmarks of the fascist—the scapegoat—the Brits are to blame for everything even their own atrocities.
The hon. Member for Foyle is absolutely right—they are Fascists. I remind him, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) of what happened when democracy failed to stand up to Fascists. The arguments that we heard today from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield and the hon. Member for Walton, who spoke about the 1640s or 1660s are no different in style from the arguments heard in the 1920s. But what were the arguments then? Bring Mussolini into the political process and he will change and become like us. Do not make martyrs of those who advocate violence. Treat them reasonably and they will behave reasonably. What happened? The leader of the Socialist party in Italy, Matteoti, was shot on the Parliament steps, in Rome. That was the way the Fascists behaved in Italy in the 1920s. If the hon. Gentleman is right about Fascism, these members should be treated as they are, as Fascists.

Mr. Heffer: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Needham: I do not wish to give way. I have only a few minutes to reply to the debate.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said that the Bill was a farce and would worsen the sectarian bear pit of local government politics. Moreover, he said that Sinn Fein would welcome the Bill, although my quotation from Mr. Morrison went on to criticise the SDLP, claiming that the suggestion that the declaration would help Sinn Fein was nonsense. As to the hon. Gentleman's pejorative comments about a sectarian bear pit in the councils of Northern Ireland, he ignores those councils which are trying to run local services in a non-sectarian, bi-partisan efficient way, such as Derry, Dungannon, Fermanagh, and North Down councils. None is being run in a sectarian way.
What would the hon. Gentleman do? In a recent article in The Irish Times he said that he wishes to be the last Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and wants to see a united Ireland by consent. Yet what does he propose to do about the violence in Northern Ireland council chambers? He claims that the declaration is
ill-thought out, hastily put together, pernicious and downright dangerous.
No doubt that is why he is abstaining tonight. He also said of the declaration:
Surely instead of arguing for the exclusion of Sinn Fein from the democratic process, the Government should be seeking to draw its members into electoral politics and away from the politics of the gun. As the reaction to the Enniskillen tragedy has shown, accountability to the electorate has already led to demands from within Sinn Fein that the worst excesses of the Provisional IRA be curbed.

That is absolute nonsense. There is no conceivable example that Sinn Fein has changed its spots in any way.
As the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) said in a recent article in Newsweek when talking about Sinn Fein's relationship with the IRA:
We come from the same family. We draw water from the same well. The IRA's rule is armed political action, ours is unarmed political action.
Yet the hon. Gentleman says that if we do anything we should rely on the criminal law. We are introducing this legislation because the criminal law does not do what we wish it to do. It does not stop people supporting the IRA. It does not meet the problems that we face in council chambers. Eighty-four per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland, including 20 per cent. of those claiming to support Sinn Fein, think that our proposals to. introduce a declaration against violence are right.
Local government is the bedrock on which democracy depends. This measure, together with the series of proposals I announced last week to make local government more accountable, more efficient and more competitive, show that the Government will do what they can to create conditions in which councils can perform their duties in a non-sectarian, efficient and open way. As President Kennedy said in 1963:
The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.
This Bill deserves the support of the whole House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 291.

Division No. 7]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cousins, Jim


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Crowther, Stan


Allen, Graham
Cryer, Bob


Anderson, Donald
Cummings, John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Armstrong, Hilary
Cunningham, Dr John


Ashton, Joe
Darling, Alistair


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Barron, Kevin
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Battle, John
Dewar, Donald


Beckett, Margaret
Dixon, Don


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dobson, Frank


Bermingham, Gerald
Doran, Frank


Bidwell, Sydney
Duffy, A. E. P.


Blair, Tony
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Blunkett, David
Eadie, Alexander


Boateng, Paul
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Boyes, Roland
Fatchett, Derek


Bradley, Keith
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Field, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Flannery, Martin


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Flynn, Paul


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Buchan, Norman
Foster, Derek


Buckley, George J.
Foulkes, George


Caborn, Richard
Fraser, John


Callaghan, Jim
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Galloway, George


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Canavan, Dennis
George, Bruce


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clay, Bob
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clelland, David
Gordon, Mildred


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Graham, Thomas


Cohen, Harry
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Corbett, Robin
Grocott, Bruce


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy






Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Heffer, Eric S.
Mowlam, Marjorie


Henderson, Doug
Mullin, Chris


Hinchliffe, David
Murphy, Paul


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Nellist, Dave


Holland, Stuart
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Home Robertson, John
O'Brien, William


Hood, Jimmy
O'Neill, Martin


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hoyle, Doug
Patchett, Terry


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pike, Peter L.


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Prescott, John


Hume, John
Quin, Ms Joyce


Illsley, Eric
Radice, Giles


Ingram, Adam
Randall, Stuart


Janner, Greville
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


John, Brynmor
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Richardson, Jo


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Robinson, Geoffrey


Lamond, James
Rogers, Allan


Leadbitter, Ted
Rooker, Jeff


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lewis, Terry
Rowlands, Ted


Livingstone, Ken
Sedgemore, Brian


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sheerman, Barry


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Loyden, Eddie
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McAllion, John
Short, Clare


McAvoy, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis


Macdonald, Calum A.
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McFall, John
Snape, Peter


McGrady, Eddie
Soley, Clive


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Spearing, Nigel


McKelvey, William
Steinberg, Gerry


McLeish, Henry
Stott, Roger


McNamara, Kevin
Strang, Gavin


McTaggart, Bob
Straw, Jack


McWilliam, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Madden, Max
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Turner, Dennis


Mallon, Seamus
Wall, Pat


Marek, Dr John
Walley, Joan


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wareing, Robert N.


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Martlew, Eric
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Maxton, John
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Meacher, Michael
Wilson, Brian


Meale, Alan
Winnick, David


Michael, Alun
Worthington, Tony


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wray, Jimmy


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)



Moonie, Dr Lewis
Tellers for the Ayes:


Morgan, Rhodri
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Morley, Elliott
Mr. Ken Eastham.


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)



NOES


Adley, Robert
Bellingham, Henry


Alexander, Richard
Bendall, Vivian


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Allason, Rupert
Benyon, W.


Alton, David
Bevan, David Gilroy


Amess, David
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Amos, Alan
Body, Sir Richard


Arbuthnot, James
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Ashby, David
Boswell, Tim


Ashdown, Paddy
Bottomley, Peter


Atkins, Robert
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Baldry, Tony
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Brazier, Julian


Batiste, Spencer
Bright, Graham


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Beggs, Roy
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter





Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Howard, Michael


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Burt, Alistair
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Butler, Chris
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Howells, Geraint


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Carrington, Matthew
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Cartwright, John
Hunter, Andrew


Chapman, Sydney
Irvine, Michael


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Irving, Charles


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jack, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jackson, Robert


Conway, Derek
Janman, Tim


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cope, Rt Hon John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cormack, Patrick
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Curry, David
Key, Robert


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Kilfedder, James


Davis, David (Boothferry)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Day, Stephen
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Dorrell, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knapman, Roger


Durant, Tony
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Emery, Sir Peter
Knowles, Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Knox, David


Evennett, David
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Latham, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Lawrence, Ivan


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lee, John (Pendle)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Forman, Nigel
Lilley, Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lord, Michael


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Forth, Eric
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McCrindle, Robert


Fox, Sir Marcus
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Freeman, Roger
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


French, Douglas
Maclean, David


Fry, Peter
Maclennan, Robert


Gardiner, George
McLoughlin, Patrick


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Gill, Christopher
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Madel, David


Goodlad, Alastair
Malins, Humfrey


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mans, Keith


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Maples, John


Gow, Ian
Marland, Paul


Gower, Sir Raymond
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mates, Michael


Gregory, Conal
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Grist, Ian
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Ground, Patrick
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Grylls, Michael
Miller, Sir Hal


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mills, Iain


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Miscampbell, Norman


Hanley, Jeremy
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hannam, John
Moate, Roger


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Monro, Sir Hector


Harris, David
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Haselhurst, Alan
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hawkins, Christopher
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Hayward, Robert
Moss, Malcolm


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Heddle, John
Neale, Gerrard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Needham, Richard


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Nelson, Anthony


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Neubert, Michael


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nicholls, Patrick


Hind, Kenneth
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Holt, Richard
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley






Oppenheim, Phillip
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Page, Richard
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Paice, James
Sumberg, David


Paisley, Rev Ian
Summerson, Hugo


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Patnick, Irvine
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Temple-Morris, Peter


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Portillo, Michael
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Powell, William (Corby)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Raffan, Keith
Thorne, Neil


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Thornton, Malcolm


Redwood, John
Thurnham, Peter


Renton, Tim
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rhodes James, Robert
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Riddick, Graham
Tracey, Richard


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Tredinnick, David


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Twinn, Dr Ian


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Roe, Mrs Marion
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Walden, George


Rost, Peter
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Rowe, Andrew
Wallace, James


Ryder, Richard
Waller, Gary


Sackville, Hon Tom
Ward, John


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Warren, Kenneth


Scott, Nicholas
Watts, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wells, Bowen


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wheeler, John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Whitney, Ray


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wiggin, Jerry


Shersby, Michael
Wilshire, David


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wolfson, Mark


Speller, Tony
Wood, Timothy


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Woodcock, Mike


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Yeo, Tim


Squire, Robin
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John



Steel, Rt Hon David
Tellers for the Noes:


Steen, Anthony
Mr. David Lightbown and


Stern, Michael
Mr. Alan Howarth.


Stevens, Lewis

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment. on Second or Third Reading):— —

The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 41.

Division No. 8]
[10.14 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Alexander, Richard
Benyon, W.


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bevan, David Gilroy


Allason, Rupert
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Alton, David
Body, Sir Richard


Amess, David
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Amos, Alan
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Arbuthnot, James
Boswell, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bottomley, Peter


Ashby, David
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Ashdown, Paddy
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Atkins, Robert
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Baldry, Tony
Brazier, Julian


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bright, Graham


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Batiste, Spencer
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Beggs, Roy
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Bellingham, Henry
Burt, Alistair


Bendall, Vivian
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)





Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Jack, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jackson, Robert


Carrington, Matthew
Janman, Tim


Cartwright, John
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Chapman, Sydney
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Key, Robert


Conway, Derek
Kilfedder, James


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Cope, Rt Hon John
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Cormack, Patrick
Kirkhope, Timothy


Curry, David
Knapman, Roger


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Day, Stephen
Knowles, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Knox, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Durant, Tony
Lang, Ian


Dykes, Hugh
Latham, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Lawrence, Ivan


Evennett, David
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fallon, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lilley, Peter


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lord, Michael


Fookes, Miss Janet
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Forman, Nigel
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
McCrindle, Robert


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Forth, Eric
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Maclean, David


Fox, Sir Marcus
Maclennan, Robert


Freeman, Roger
McLoughlin, Patrick


French, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Gardiner, George
Malins, Humfrey


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mans, Keith


Gill, Christopher
Maples, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Marland, Paul


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gow, Ian
Mates, Michael


Gower, Sir Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Gregory, Conal
Miller, Sir Hal


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mills, Iain


Grist, Ian
Miscampbell, Norman


Ground, Patrick
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grylls, Michael
Moate, Roger


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hanley, Jeremy
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hannam, John
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Moss, Malcolm


Harris, David
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Haselhurst, Alan
Neale, Gerrard


Hawkins, Christopher
Needham, Richard


Hayward, Robert
Nelson, Anthony


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Neubert, Michael


Heddle, John
Nicholls, Patrick


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hind, Kenneth
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Holt, Richard
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Hordern, Sir Peter
Pge, Richard


Howard, Michael
Paice, James


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Patnick, Irvine


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Howells, Geraint
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunter, Andrew
Powell, William (Corby)


Irvine, Michael
Raffan, Keith


Irving, Charles
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy






Redwood, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Renton, Tim
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Rhodes James, Robert
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Riddick, Graham
Temple-Morris, Peter


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Thorne, Neil


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Thornton, Malcolm


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Thurnham, Peter


Rost, Peter
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Ryder, Richard
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Sackville, Hon Tom
Tracey, Richard


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Tredinnick, David


Sayeed, Jonathan
Twinn, Dr Ian


Scott, Nicholas
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Walden, George


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wallace, James


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Waller, Gary


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Ward, John


Shersby, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Warren, Kenneth


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Watts, John


Speller, Tony
Wells, Bowen


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wheeler, John


Squire, Robin
Whitney, Ray


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Widdecombe, Ann


Steel, Rt Hon David
Wiggin, Jerry


Steen, Anthony
Wilshire, David


Stern, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stevens, Lewis
Wood, Timothy


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Yeo, Tim


Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stradling Thomas, Sir John



Sumberg, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Summerson, Hugo
Mr. David Lightbown and


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mr. Alan Howarth.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Hume, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Lamond, James


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Lewis, Terry


Battle, John
Livingstone, Ken


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Loyden, Eddie


Bermingham, Gerald
McAllion, John


Boateng, Paul
Madden, Max


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Buchan, Norman
Mallon, Seamus


Canavan, Dennis
Meale, Alan


Clay, Bob
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Nellist, Dave


Cohen, Harry
Patchett, Terry


Corbyn, Jeremy
Pike, Peter L.


Cryer, Bob
Sedgemore, Brian


Duffy, A. E. P.
Skinner, Dennis


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Wall, Pat


Flannery, Martin
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Galloway, George
Wray, Jimmy


Gordon, Mildred



Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Tellers for the Noes:


Heffer, Eric S.
Mr. Chris Mullin and


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Mr. Eddie McGrady.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Bill [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any increase attributable to the provisions of the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment; and
(b) any expenses incurred under section 14A(4) or 14B of the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962; and

(2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the provisions of the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Mr. Bob Cryer: We should not let money resolutions go through on the nod. In the case of this one, we have not yet received an explanation.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: The Prime Minister is leaving.

Mr. Cryer: I can understand why the Prime Minister is departing. She is going to get hold of an egg as fast as she can to prove that a junior Minister is wrong yet again. However, at the moment we want to discuss this money resolution because, in the absence of any explanation, it would be worthwhile to speculate on the consequences of the legislation. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would hon. Members who are not staying to debate the money resolution kindly leave quietly?

Mr. Cryer: The money resolution provides for money to be payable as a consequence of the legislation. Therefore, we have to take a look at the legislation in general terms to see whether any increase in expenditure is likely.
For a start, there are under schedule 2 what I imagine to be trivial amounts relating to the printing and arrangements for the declaration against terrorism by potential candidates. I would not raise the matter if it were not for the consequences of that, which are shown in clause 6. It says:
A person who has made a declaration required for the purposes of section 3, 4 or 5 of this Act acts in breach of the terms of the declaration if—
(a) he expresses support for or approval of—
(i) the activities of a proscribed organisation,".
That is fairly straightforward, but it continues by referring to "acts of terrorism". There is a definition:
(that is to say, violence for political ends) connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland".
That is a very wide definition. I wonder whether the Minister had assessed the consequences of such a vast, unfettered definition.
For example, vendettas may be played out. People may go to the High Court with allegations about people breaching the declaration. They might claim that people supported acts of terrorism—violence for political ends —if, in Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom, they supported the police using violence against the miners. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that someone would argue that.


As I argued earlier, if people support the retention and development of nuclear weapons by the Conservative Government, that may be construed as an act of terrorism, that is, violence for political ends. That is precisely the definition, because the Government tell us that our nuclear weapons are deployed to save us from Communism. That political aim is entirely within the definition given in the Bill.
If people raise such issues, if councillors or public representatives make such statements, many people can trip off to the High Court to get a ruling that various public representatives have breached the declaration. To obtain the evidence, people will have to be present at the meetings. Will the police be asked to attend the meetings, either in uniform or plain clothes, to act as informers on what is said in a public meeting, as suitably defined?
What about giving evidence? Presumably public officials will have to attend the High Court to give evidence on the validity or otherwise of the claims that declarations have been breached. All in all, it is clearly an area of great dissension in a section of the United Kingdom that is split by dissension anyway. There are factions using every possible means against each other, and this legislation will give them the opportunity to extend that practice.
Therefore, it is inevitable that there will be an increase in the charges on public expenditure. The Minister may say that my fears will not be realised and that there will not be any significant increase in public expenditure. Indeed, that is the suggestion in the Bill. The explanatory and financial memorandum states:
The Bill is not expected to result in any significant addition to public sector expenditure.
Will the Minister explain what that means? If someone goes to the DHSS and receives an extra £5 by illegal means, the Department does not ignore that and say that that is not a significant increase in expenditure; it prosecutes. It is important that the House knows what the Minister has in mind by the use of the word "significant". What is the definition? Is it £5,000, £10,000, £100,000 or £500,000?
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has just come into the Chamber, most providentially. He knows how these debates start through our asking a Minister for an explanation, to which we are entitled. We discovered during the debate that the Minister asked for certain rights in the Bill which he could not finance. I do not want the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to be placed in the same position. The Government have been embarrassed by junior Ministers over the past few days. I do not want other junior Ministers to cause the Government yet further embarrassment—and I can see a Government Whip nodding sagely at my comments about the Under-Secretary of State for Health. Perhaps he anticipates a promotion opportunity. I suspect that in two or three months' time that opportunity may arise.
I am trying to encourage the Minister from the Northern Ireland Office to give the House an adequate explanation on these matters. As he knows, during a debate on a Bill there is never an explanation of the financial background. This debate presents the House with an opportunity that should not be missed for the Minister to give us the financial details, and I am sure that he is eager to do that.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): I am always eager to assist the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) in any way that I can. We all enjoyed his presence during the debate. Had he been here, he would have heard some of the questions on money being debated extensively and carefully.
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, litigation is expensive. During today's debate many hon. Members made the point that litigation is so expensive that they were not sure that applicants would be able to afford the costs of bringing such actions. While legal aid will be available against the usual criteria, those criteria will include a test of merit in the courts, so ill-founded cases will not attract legal aid. Secondly, the courts have an inherent jurisdiction to dismiss cases that are frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. In those circumstances, I am sure that the courts will have no hesitation in exercising that jurisdiction, so I do not believe that there will be a large amount of frivolous, vexatious or costly litigation.
As the hon. Member for Bradford, South so perceptively realises, there is a possible cost if applicants apply for legal aid. Those extra costs of any such actions cannot be calculated with any precision, but the Northern Ireland court service which supports the legal aid fund administered by the Law Society has sought provision of about £100,000 for the forthcoming financial year on a contingency basis. That, plus a very few minor expenses, is the only financial consequence of the Bill.

Mr. Harry Barnes: No price is too high for the extension of democracy. The people of Chile and, in Britain, the Chartists and the suffragettes realised that. Many of them paid with their lives for the extension of democracy. A money resolution for the extension of democracy would therefore have our whole-hearted support, but the Bill is concerned with manipulating and fixing democratic arrangements. Even if that could be justified, we should not be spending a great deal of money on it. At least we should manipulate on the cheap instead of paying extensive amounts of money for it.
What is needed to extend democracy in Northern Ireland is not the measure before us, but more rather than less democracy. There should be a Bill of Rights, which would be expensive because of the cases that would be brought in connection with it and the cases that would be used to overturn much of the Government's legislation. There should be a devolved assembly, which would also be expensive because of the massive problems that it would have to handle.
Furthermore, Northern Ireland needs economic advance more than anything else. On Second Reading, the Minister claimed that that was taking place, but I disagree with him fundamentally. The rosy picture that he painted does not exist in Northern Ireland. However, we should concern ourselves now with money and its connection with the democratic process. We have been discussing a genuine democratic dilemma. There has not been sufficient consideration by either side of the House—and certainly not by the Government—of the dilemma and the different factors that need to be considered in connection with it.


The problem with democracy is how far it can tolerate the intolerant. There is no doubt that Sinn Fein and other paramilitary groups operate in an intolerant fashion. Usually, democrats err on the side of tolerance to the intolerant. Those who have the best arguments and democratic principles should win in the democratic market place, but undoubtedly there are exceptions in Northern Ireland. The circumstances in Northern Ireland are almost such that we should not tolerate the intolerant, but are hon. Members in a position to decide? Are the Government in a position to tell Northern Ireland that they will no longer tolerate the intolerant?
We should apply very high standards of democracy when considering the Bill, but the Government are not doing so. By their bans, proscription and impediments on trade union activities and other action, they are attacking civil liberties, undertaking a fantastic amount of centralisation and manipulating the franchise with the poll tax. The Bill must be considered against that background. A Government operating in such a way cannot ask Parliament to be intolerant of those who are intolerant.
On Second Reading, mention was made of a declaration that must be signed. It was said that if Sinn Fein and other paramilitary organisations failed to sign it they would be banned. They would obviously take a pragmatic view of that. This is relevant to the money resolution because massive expense will be incurred in taking cases to court. Sinn Fein and other paramilitary groups will sign the declaration when they believe it is to their advantage to do so and then face the problems of being debarred and the civil actions when they arise. On some occasions, they will refuse to sign and will gain much political advantage from doing so.
Only people who act morally will be faced with the problem of whether to sign the declaration. They are worried about oaths and declarations and their civil liberties being attacked. They will refuse to sign the declaration, which is supposed to extend and develop democratic processes.
Clause 9 provides that people should be debarred from membership of local councils for five years in addition to facing any other action that may be taken. If people are debarred from local government, like the Clay Cross councillors, they have to pay a surcharge and serve their five-year disqualification after their bankruptcy has been discharged. Are we saying that the sentences imposed by the courts will not work and that people should serve a further five years disqualification, with all the various financial considerations that flow from that?
The Bill defines terrorism, but "terrorism" is a purely evaluative term. Sinn Fein and Protestant paramilitaries are terrorists and I condemn them. Others call them "freedom fighters" and praise them. We should not pass laws that include the term "terrorism". That commits us to saying not only that certain actions are contrary to the law but that those actions lead to our criticism of them. The law should be empirical and factual. In our debates we should use evaluative arguments either for or against those actions. On those grounds, I oppose the money resolution.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I wonder whether the Minister can clear up a technical point. It is probably a silly technical point, but the English legal system has been known to be very silly and, no doubt, will be very silly in the future. I have looked at schedule 2 as a lawyer. It states:

Mr. Needham: If the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) had been here during the debate on the Bill, he would have heard that point discussed at length. It has nothing to do with the money resolution.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,


That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—


(a) any increase attributable to the provisions of the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment; and
(b) any expenses incurred under section 14A(4) or 14B of the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962; and

(2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the provisions of the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment.

DECLARATION AGAINST TERRORISM

PART I

FORM FOR INCLUSION IN CONSENT TO NOMINATION

I declare that, if elected, I will not by word or deed express support for or approval of—

(a) any organisation that is for the time being a proscribed organisation specified in Schedule 2 to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978; or
(b) acts of terrorism (that is to say, violence for political ends) connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland.

PART II

FORM FOR USE IN CASE OF DISTRICT COUNCILLOR CHOSEN TO FILL CASUAL VACANCY

I, (name in full), of (home address in full) declare that, if I am chosen to be a councillor for the District of (name of district), I will not by word or deed express support for or approval of—

(a) any organisation that is for the time being a proscribed organisation specified in Schedule 2 to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978; or
(b) acts of terrorism (that is to say, violence for political ends) connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland."

How is "deed" defined? What are the implications for the expenditure of public funds?

A person may say that X has done a deed which expresses support for an
organisation that is for the time being a proscribed organisation specified in Schedule 2 to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978
or that X supports
acts of terrorism (that is to say, violence for political ends) connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland".
He may say, "My evidence that he has committed that deed is that he is a member of Sinn Fein." The court can, with no other evidence, deduce from the fact that X is a member of Sinn Fein that he supports an organisation that is proscribed as specified in schedule 2 or that he supports acts of terrorism. Does the deed require some act other than that X is a member of a political party of which we are all aware and about whose political views on terrorism the Government make certain claims? Have we predetermined that a whole class belonging to a whole political party has committed the deed which renders something a crime under an Act of Parliament? If we have done that and no other deed is involved, that would be a startling development by the Government which has not been dealt with during the debate.

European Community (Budget)

The Paymaster General (Mr. Peter Brooke): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7271/88 and 7758/88 on the preliminary Draft Budget for 1989, 7908/88 on the Draft Budget for 1989, 8996/88 on Letter of Amendment No. 1 to the preliminary Draft Budget for 1989 and 9286/88 on the European Parliament's proposed Amendments and modifications to the Draft Budget for 1989.
The 1989 Community budget is the first to be subject to the new arrangements for budgetary discipline which have been put in place since the February European Council. This debate gives us a useful opportunity to consider how those arrangements are working.
Three aspects of the new arrangements are particularly relevant to the documents before us today: the ceilings on the growth of the Community's own resources; the control of agricultural and other expenditure; and improved budget management.
First, let me deal with own resources. Under the new own resources decision, which the United Kingdom has now formally ratified, annual sub-ceilings have been imposed for the first time on the overall level of the Community's resources. The ceiling for 1989 is 1·17 per cent. of Community gross national product. The sub-ceilings set an absolute upper limit on the growth of the Community's total expenditure, year by year.
As regards control of agricultural expenditure, the situation has been transformed over the last 12 months. In the context of today's debate, I draw particular attention to the financial guideline and to the new provisions for stock depreciation. The guideline limit relating to expenditure on agricultural market support is legally binding. The limit will grow each year at no more than 74 per cent. of the rate of growth of Community GNP, which is likely to mean a real increase of around 2 per cent. a year, compared with 10 per cent. a year between 1984 and 1987. Happily, expenditure in both 1988 and 1989 is set to grow even more slowly than this. I shall come back to this point later on. As regards stocks, provision has been made to ensure systematic depreciation in the year of purchase, and special funds have been earmarked to pay for the disposal of existing stocks. This should ensure that the overhanging expenditure commitments on intervention stocks are eliminated by 1992 at the latest.
The second aspect of the new budget discipline arrangements which I want to touch on is the interinstitutional agreement. Under this, the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission have bound themselves to respect a procedural and financial framework designed to implement the budgetary conclusions of the Brussels European Council. An integral part of the IIA is a financial perspective which establishes ceilings for each of the main categories of Community expenditure between 1988 and 1992.
The Council has undertaken to apply the IIA in accordance with paragraph 14 of the Brussels conclusions. This paragraph introduced a jargon-ridden but operationally important distinction between so-called "privileged" and "non-privileged" non-obligatory expenditure. Privileged expenditure includes the structural funds, the research and development framework programme and the integrated Mediterranean programmes. The growth of this

category of expenditure between 1988 and 1992 has been pre-ordained by decisions taken at, or before, the Brussels Council. However, for the remainder of DNO—the non-privileged element—the Council has agreed to respect the maximum rate of increase calculated by the Commission at the start of each year's budget procedure within the framework of article 203(9) of the treaty. The calculated maximum rate for the 1989 budget is 5·8 per cent.
The final aspect of the new arrangements to which I should refer is improved budget management, including, in particular, the new regime to reinforce annuality, which is designed to make the carry-forward of appropriations from one year to the next the exception rather than the rule.
I apologise if the next section of my speech is something of a ball-by-ball commentary on the 1989 budget procedure, but I am sure the House would expect me to say something about each of the documents referred to in the motion.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Minister has referred to those exciting new provisions which will prevent overspending in the future and has made several recommendations. Does he recall that, when almost identical assurances were given in 1984, the EEC got round all those restrictions by calling for extra expenditure in advance, thus ensuring that we had a year which was basically one of 10 months? Will he give us a cast-iron assurance that advance payments will not be permitted as a means of getting round budgetary controls?

Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend is vigilant and persistent in these matters. I would be hesitant to give him cast-iron assurances on anything and he would be the first to acknowledge that I would be rash to do so, given the history. However, the principles of annuality that we have built into the arrangements, in terms of the new regulations, should provide a better defence than we have historically had. My hon. Friend knows that the arrangements to which he refers were addressed to a particular problem, but did not lead to excess expenditure in the budget in question.
The commentary begins with the preliminary draft budget—PDB—which the Commission presented in June and which is dealt with in documents Nos. 7271/88 and 7758/88. There were two especially noteworthy aspects of the PDB. First, it included provision of almost 3·25 billion ecu for the depreciation of agricultural stocks. including 1·4 billion ecu in respect of existing stocks. Secondly, the PDB proposed an increase in DNO as a whole of around 20 per cent. in terms of commitment appropriations. Much of that, of course, was for the preordained expansion of the structural funds to which I referred earlier. The figure for non-privilaged DNO alone was some 12 per cent., more than double the calculated maximum rate of 5·8 per cent.
Overall, the PDB was about 450 million ecu within the ceiling in the financial perspective. The Commission noted, with some justification, that its proposals marked a start in the process of restoring a balance between agricultural and non-agricultural expenditure.
The Budget Council considered the PDB in July. The main issue was the level of non-privileged DNO That was procedurally important, because of the rules laid down in paragraph 14 of the Brussels conclusions. The Council


decided by a large majority to stick rigidly to the letter of the Brussels conclusions and to confine the growth of non-privileged DNO in the draft budget to half the calculated maximum rate—that is, to 2·9 per cent. That involved cutting the Commission's proposals by 365 mecu in commitments and 356 mecu in payments.
At the July Council, I urged the Commission to keep the prospective level of agricultural expenditure in 1989 under close review, especially in the light of the American drought. I asked it to submit an amending letter to the 1989 budget, if necessary.
The amending letter was eventually tabled in October —document No. 8996/88. Its overall effect, compared with the PDB, was to reduce by almost 3·5 billion ecu the own resources which member states would have to contribute to the Community in 1989. That reduction, amounting to more than 7 per cent. of the PDB, is largely the product of two things—first, a cut of almost 1·4 billion ecu in the provision for agricultural market support in 1989 and, secondly, an expected revenue surplus of more than 2 billion ecu in respect of the 1988 Budget.
The reduction is largely fortuitous. Part of it reflects higher world prices caused by the American drought and a further part reflects higher than expected revenue from Customs duties, which in turn reflects faster than expected economic growth. It is extremely encouraging that a reduction in next year's agricultural appropriations has already been made. The principle has been established that surplus provision needs to be stripped out of the budget as soon as it is identified. No less encouraging is the fact that the amending letter provides for an increase of 50 mecu —to a total of more the 1,780 mecu—in the United Kingdom's Fontainebleau abatement for 1988. That is the first occasion on which the abatement has been increased during the course of the budget year to which it relates. Finally, on the amending letter, it is worth noting that the 1988 surplus stems, in part, from unused appropriations that have been cancelled as a result of the new budget management regime.
The Parliament gave its first reading to the draft budget in October. It voted to take on board the reduced agricultural provision in the amending letter by means of a broadly corresponding modification to the draft budget. The details of that modification, and of the Parliament's other proposed changes, are given in document No. 9286/88. Most of the other changes were in respect of non-privileged DNO. In summary, the Parliament voted to restore most of the reductions in that type of expenditure that the Council had made in July. That was, however, no more than the Parliament was entitled to do under the treaty and it did not involve any breach of the ceilings for individual categories of expenditure in the IIA.
I come now to the final overs of the ball-by-ball commentary, which were bowled, so to speak, at the second Budget Council on 22 November. The Council's task was somewhat complicated as it involved giving a First Reading to the amending letter at the same time as giving a Second Reading to the draft budget and considering the Parliament's amendments and modifications. Despite that, the revised draft budget that the Council established was coherent and disciplined.
Very briefly, the Council did two things. First, it agreed all the main elements of the amending letter. In the

process, it rejected the Parliament's modification to agricultural provision, because it had become technically redundant. Secondly, the Council rejected around two thirds of the Parliament's amendments to non-privileged DNO, thereby bringing the growth of such expenditure back within the calculated maximum rate of 5·8 per cent. So, just as it did at its First Reading, the Council followed the letter of the procedure agreed in February.
Therefore, we have a draft budget for 1989 in which commitments are around 2·3 billion ecu below the overall ceiling in the financial perspective; in which provision for agricultural market support is around 1·8 billion ecu below the guideline limit; and in which the own resources call-up rate is 1·02 per cent. of GNP, compared with the annual sub-ceiling for 1989 of 1·17 per cent.
In line with the shuttlecock diplomacy which characterises the budget procedure, the action now shifts to Strasbourg, where the Parliament will have its Second Reading debate in the week beginning 12 December. The Parliament can be expected to amend the provision for DNO in the draft budget to some degree, but the amount which it can add within the relevant ceilings in the financial perspective is relatively small.
For its part, the Council has agreed the basis on which it will enter into a formal process of co-decision with the Parliament, under article 203(9) of the treaty, in order to agree the overall growth of DNO for the 1988 budget. That overall growth will substantially exceed the calculated maximum rate as an inevitable consequence of the increase in structural fund appropriations agreed at the Brussels Council.
It is gratifying to note that the new procedures and parameters that were put in place after the Brussels Council have had a benign and moderating influence on both the level of the 1989 budget and the atmosphere in which negotiations have been conducted thus far. The Council has respected in an exemplary way the Brussels conclusions on budgetary discipline.

Mr. Stuart Holland: Opposition Members are grateful to the Paymaster General for taking us ball by ball, as he said, through the commentary. He did not actually say anything about how well we are playing in the matter of the EEC budget, other than on the rebate. There are certain issues arising from the budget which Opposition Members would like to address and a number of specific questions which we would like to put to him. For example, it is already very clear, as he has said, that one of the reasons why the budget is in better shape this year is the overall situation of the world food market, and especially the rise in food prices because of the drought in the United States.
There is an underlying issue on which we would like to know the Government's view and also what the Government have been doing in the preparation for the budget and what position they took. For example, granted that the Government, and not least the Prime Minister, are especially concerned about public expenditure, what is the Minister's view of the current meetings between the United States and the European Economic Community in negotiations in the framework of GATT for the reduction of food subsidies?
As has been recognised many times by hon. Members on both sides of the House, we still have a very high price


food support system in the European Community. The fact that we now have stabilisers with only 74 per cent. growth of GNP being reflected in a diminished share—let us trust that it is indeed finally a diminished share—of agricultural spending and total spending none the less leaves us in a situation where, on average, about two thirds to three quarters of the total Community budget over the last decade has been allocated to agricultural subsidies.
What is the Minister's view on the fact that the OECD, for example, estimates that overall, on a global basis, about $220 billion or £118 billion, a year is being spent by developed countries in subsidising agriculture? What representations have Her Majesty's Government made in the framework of the GATT session, through the European Community or directly in response to the United States proposals as, for example, reported by Bailey Morris in today's edition of The Times, for a major reduction of protection in agricultural products? That is the sort of move for which the Government deserve the support from both sides, unlike the simple trimming of expenditure, which continues to swamp the Community budget.
I do not wish to detain the House at length on this, but it also relates to the availability of expenditure for the structural funds and especially the regional fund. The recent doubling of the regional fund looks dramatic, but as the regional fund amounts to a minor fraction of I per cent. of Community GDP and only about 10 per cent. of that results in net transfers between member states, other than the special category of the integrated Mediterranean programmes, we are not talking about a major shift from agricultural to regional spending.
In that respect, if Le Monde today was accurate in reporting the Prime Minister at the Rhodes summit as saying that the structural funds are already more than the Marshall plan, she should retract that. It is arrant nonsense. The Marshall plan was equivalent to a transfer of between 3 and 4 per cent. of United States' GDP to Europe each year for four years from 1948. The whole Community budget is not scheduled to exceed 1·4 per cent. of GDP. Therefore, the whole Community budget is only one third of the contribution made under the Marshall plan to Western Europe after the war and the structural funds are only a minor fraction of 1 per cent. of Community GDP.
The Paymaster General may not be able to respond directly, but perhaps as the allegation that the structural funds amount to more than the Marshall plan is circulating in Whitehall, he is familiar with the statement and the Prime Minister intended to say that. If so, I hope that he will recognise that it is an unfounded and wholly misleading statement. It gives the impression that the structural and regional funds are far greater than they are.
Document 7908/88 budget 16 provides interesting figures on agricultural levies. Page 17 estimates revenue under the draft budget. Agricultural levies for the 1989 draft are estimated at 1·33 billion ecu—I shall not trouble with the succeeding range of decimal points—and sugar-isoglucose levies are estimated at 1·35 billion ecu. Granted that levies on sugar militate against the exports from some lesser developed countries, not least Caribbean countries, why do the Government tolerate that? Why are we not pushing for a reduction of those levies and allowing for a higher volume of imports of sugar from developing countries?
We appreciate that not everyone is making supernormal profits from beet sugar in the Community and that many small and medium-sized farmers' average income may not be in excess of the average industrial wage in this country and may be considerably less than that of their own country. We are not saying that marginal farmers' incomes should be wiped out by no Community agricultural policy whatever, but sugar is a special case.
We should be glad to know whether in the preparation of the draft budget the Government have been fighting to ensure that there is a reduction of those levies.
If one puts the 1·33 million ecu from the agricultural levies or the 1·35 million ecu on sugar-isoglucose levies against page 76 of the same document, which refers to an absolutely parsimonious 2 million ecu in food aid, one sees that that is out line—despite the considerable degree of self-congratulation with which, with unaccustomed modesty, the Paymaster General entered into his exposition.
Some hon. Members might be prepared to say that food aid should not be a priority of the Community and that there should be food development programmes. Depending on the relative balance and scale of food aid programmes, one could well agree with hon. Members making such a point, were any on their feet to do so. However, I do not encourage them to rise to their feet, although it might at least interrupt the monologue from this Dispatch Box.
Expenditure on IFAD—the International Fund for Agricultural Development—is precisely related to developing food production in the less-developed countries. If I recollect the figures, during the last major famine in Ethiopia, IFAD could gain a year's production of grain on a farm in the highlands of Ethiopia for something like a tenth of the cost of one week's drop of food aid to the area, so why on page 81 of the budget is there no commitment for 1989 whatsoever under IFAD? Why have those commitments not been made? The United Kingdom's contribution to IFAD is low. Why can we not get the Community to make that kind of commitment to IFAD, which would mean that, with its cost-effective programmes in agricultural development, it could assist the developing countries?
Again in the context of developing countries, page 73 contains a series of statements of co-operation with developing and non-member countries. Page 75 reiterates —Opposition Members are well aware of this—that the European development fund is not included in the budget. Therefore, chapters 90 and 91 on the European development fund and co-operation with the African, Caribbean and Pacific states and on co-operation with the overseas countries and territories associated with the Community have been deleted from the budget. Perhaps the Minister will give us his view on why that is the case. We appreciate that that has been the convention for some time, but why can the House not scrutinise those budgets within the framework of the overall budget of the Community? What, in practice and in terms of the specific allocations are the subtitles of the allocations in the Community budget, and why can those not be published in the budget? I refer, for example, to page 73, item 93, headed,
Co-operation with Latin American and Asian developing countries".


Lumping Latin America and Asia together in that category gives an almost meaningless figure. Why can we not have a breakdown and why are the Government not pushing for a breakdown of such figures?
Perhaps the Minister will be a little more forthcoming on some of the items in the Community's draft general budget and in the document with the amendments and proposed modifications from the European Parliament. I shall still refer to the pages of the documents as that is simpler than giving multi-digit references for each item. I refer to page 1, which the Paymaster General did not mention, which calls for the Parliament to promote the interests of women. What was the Government's attitude to that in the preparation of the draft budget?
On page 5 there is a programme to promote information for local and regionally elected representatives on Community activities in preparation for 1992. I happen to know that that is taken seriously by national Governments in the rest of Europe. What is the Government's attitude to that?
On page 178-9 of the European Parliament document there is an item on the harmonisation and amelioration of working conditions in the Community. What representations did the Government make on that, other than the purely negative comment that they are not interested in a social dimension to Europe? What of the European Parliament's proposals for disabled people set out on page 180? What about page 195 and the proposals for the protection of the environment? We would certainly like answers from the Government to those questions.
What is the Government's attitude to the proposal on page 398 to combat world hunger? Why has the European Community pledged only 5·6 milion ecu to combat hunger in the developing countries?
I can see one reason for a report in Le Monde today about the harmonisation of taxes on savings and the different responses that we are getting from the Prime Minister and the EC. According to Le Monde, the Prime Minister said that we should be concentrating on those areas where consensus already exists. In that respect it seems that the Prime Minister does not believe that the harmonisation of tax on savings is a priority.
There are several reasons for saying that there should not be a harmonisation of taxes where they do not necessarily impede capital flow within the Community. The capital flow which really counts within the Community and which is overwhelmingly important is that which relates to the Eurodollar and Eurobond markets where such fiscal barriers hardly impede the functioning of markets which, overall, handle trillions of dollars on a global scale each year. Therefore, we would not consider that the harmonisation of taxation on capital flows was a priority. Far more important is whether or not the Community will have an industrial strategy.
At the end of the century, will there be sectors within the EC that will have regenerated themselves and are capable of facing the competitive challenge from Japan or will many of such sectors—for example the electronic consumer goods industry—simply have disappeared? That is the real challenge on savings—the translation of savings into investment in a competitive, offensive, go-getting, long—term industrial strategy. The Community budget has not addressed the need for such a strategy, despite the

proposals in the Esprit programme for the translation of technical progress into innovation in individual countries. There is no attitude towards a joint, common industrial policy in the Community.
Such a policy does not imply federalism—it does not have to be formally confederal. It could be an effective, pragmatic joint approach to industrial strategy. We suspect—we would be glad to hear the Minister's views on this—that the Government are not pushing for such a strategy and that they will leave 1992 to market forces. We have already stressed that if it is left to market forces, the big business will benefit and the small business will go to the wall. We shall be glad to know whether the Government accept that that is the likely outcome of 1992, and whether the Government pressed for the question of Europe's industrial competitiveness to be addressed in the whole approach to and debate on these budget issues in the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: These debates are pointless, because we have masses of paper, our views do not count one bit and whatever we say and however we vote it will not make the slightest difference. Nevertheless, it is reassuring to come along to these debates every year and to hear a Treasury Minister express the view that, happily, matters have been resolved, spending is under control and we can look forward to the future with more confidence than we did last year. Bearing in mind that the last time we debated this we discovered that our net contribution for 1987—88, which was originally £500 million, had been stepped up gradually to a record £1,698 million, I hope that the Minister is right. It would be helpful if we could start the debate with the Minister's opening bid in terms of what he thinks that the net contribution will be in 1989.
Why can we not have in the budget separate amounts for the levies on goods which are being imposed by the Council of Ministers and the Commission? The Minister will be aware that it is a blinkered form of protectionism. The Common Market is imposing levies on many imported goods, up to a rate of 33 per cent. Those levies bring in large amounts of money which go direct to the EC.
The Minister said that we have a new spirit of careful, cautious consideration of spending, so there will be no money wasted and no silly spending. Have the Government agreed to the proposal to spend more than 1 million ecu celebrating the French revolution? That is at page 66 of the budget. From all that I have heard about the French revolution, I believe that it was a thoroughly nasty business during which things were done of which the Government would not approve in any respect. My constituents in Southend would like to know whether the Government supported the proposal to spend all the money celebrating the French revolution. How will that benefit the Community and my constituents?
Did the Government agree to the massive increase in expenditure proposed as a grant to the European Movement? We know that the Government give a great deal of money to the European Movement, but this is said to be extra money necessary to encourage a higher percentage poll in the so-called European elections to the so-called European Parliament. I have never known an occasion when a Government have spent money on a


device to encourage more people to vote in elections. High polls or low polls can often be advantageous to one party or another. Sometimes Members from strange parties are returned in by-elections on the basis of low polls. Those things happen from time to time. Did the Government say that our taxpayers' money should go to the European Movement for the sole purpose of encouraging more people to vote in these silly Euro-elections, which everyone knows have no effect? If the European Parliament disappeared tomorrow, no one would notice.
Thirdly, did the Minister vote for the donation of a substantial sum to support rehabilitation centres for torture victims? Which torture victims did he have in mind, and what will the money be used for? Do the Government support a substantial increase in the amount of money going to something called the European Migrants Forum? That has the specific job of trying to deal with the increase of Fascism and racism in Europe. I am not sure whether the Government have had a clear indication of how Fascism is rising in Europe, but I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could say whether he thinks that the Common Market is the best body to deal with this and whether our taxpayers' funds should be used in this way.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Despite all the profligacy of the EEC and the millions of pounds spent on storing and destroying food, the item on which the hon. Gentleman chooses to pour scorn is the tiny amount of money to be used to fight racism in Europe—racism which is, in part at least, a product of the EEC and the drawing of migrant labour into EEC countries.

Mr. Taylor: I am astonished at the hon. Gentleman. Surely he recognises the blatant scandal of the terrible misery and degradation that we are heaping on the Third world by the traditional policy, which is raised time and again, of spending £200 million per week on dumping and destroying food. We all know that that is in the budget and that the people who are starving and who are hit most of all are people in the Third world. They are not getting a decent price for their food products, so they cannot buy machinery or pay their debts. That comes up time and again and every time the Government say that the amount will be reduced it increases. It is sad to think of Bob Geldof sweating his guts out to raise £100 million for the world's poor, only to find that the same amount was being spent by the Common Market every three days on dumping or destroying food. I accept what the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) says about that—it is an almighty scandal, but nothing is being done about it and nothing can be done about it.

Mr. Jim Sillars: Is the hon. Gentleman serious in what he says?

Hon. Members: Never.

Mr. Sillars: Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that in the Mediterranean area, for example, there is a long history of the transfer of people from north Africa to places such as Marseilles, and there has been a considerable problem of racism to the point that people have been murdered for no other reason than that they come from the Arab race? Is he not also aware that over the next 20 years there will be an enormous shortage of labour in every European Community country? That shortage will be made good only by bringing in people from places such as Turkey, Morocco and Tunisia. If we

do not tackle racism now, on an all-Community level, it will not be tackled and will become a major problem. Would it not be better for the hon. Gentleman to address major problems such as that rather than nit-picking his way through as he is doing?

Mr. Taylor: I find the hon. Gentleman's intervention staggering. Of course there are major problems in the EEC —I have mentioned some of them—but if the hon. Gentleman's experience of the Common Market is such that he regards it as the appropriate body to deal with the problems that he has outlined, he is living in a dream world. Does he not accept that the Common Market is a most profligate, wasteful and useless organisation? Of the things that it has tried to tackle, the common agricultural policy is a perfect example. If we give money to that organisation to deal with a problem, we are wasting our money. If the hon. Gentleman has any doubt, he should read the budget statement—especially page 60—to see how we are to fight Fascism and racism. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) will also read this. It says that we are to
improve the coordination and distribution of administrative measures".
That is how we are to deal with Fascism and racism. I do not know what that means, but my hon. Friend is an enthusiast and will know exactly what it means.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: My hon. Friend says that the EC is a profligate, wasteful, useless organisation. When does he want to leave the European Community and why does he not say so? Would it not be better if he said so honestly and straightforwardly?

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is trying to make me prolong my speech, but I shall not do so because this is a short debate. He knows that there is no way in which we can leave the Common Market, that we are in it and can do nothing about that. The only country ever to leave the Common Market is Greenland and it got out only because every member state passed a Bill allowing it out. There is no way in which we can legally withdraw from the Common Market. I am trying to stop the scandalous waste of public money that my hon. Friend knows is going on day in, day out, and I wish that he would do the same.
Does my hon. Friend the Minister think it appropriate for the British taxpayer to pay for the teaching of German to 200,000 people who have come from Russia and Poland to the West German Republic? I do not know whether this is actually happening, or why, but is it an appropriate use for EEC cash?
I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that the Community is far from spending money carefully and wisely. Our Ministers, who have many problems in dealing with the expense of our health and social services, and in paying for our pensions, will be outraged when they see the amount of money in this budget being poured into dumping food and celebrating the French revolution.

Mr. Alex Carlile: When he opened the debate, the Paymaster General, with his characteristic modesty, said that he was simply giving a ball-by-ball commentary. In this limited over match, he was batting as well; in due course, he will be bowling at the end of the match.


The cricketing analogy highlights what I agree with the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) is the futility of these debates. We are trying to debate 3 in—or should I say 7 cm—of paper in an hour and half. These debates do nothing to increase the country's understanding of the European Community, though of course they provide opportunities for the virtuosity that we have heard from the Labour Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland), and from the hon. Member for Southend, East. If he were to admit that he wants us out of Europe, it would spoil his fun; there would be nothing left for him to talk about.
It would be far better if, unlike the hon. Member for Southend, East, we did something to increase the credibility of the European Parliament. The budget should be and is debated in detail in the European Parliament; but that can happen effectively only in a European Parliament that is truly accountable and that commands the respect of the nation. I applaud the payment of grants to the European Movement if those grants are to be used to achieve some greater understanding among the public at large of the role and purpose of the European Parliament, a Parliament that, in the budget that we are debating, has played a more important and greater role than in past years.
I broadly welcome the budget for four reasons. First, it provides considerable impetus towards the completion of the internal market by 1992. Secondly, it provides for greater economic and, dare I say it, social cohesion between member states. The hon. Member for Southend, East, if he will forgive me for saying this, is a little older than me, and therefore has a longer memory than I. One of the greatest ends that can be served in a European community is social cohesion, and the removal of the divisions that were such a detriment to Europe in the earlier years of this century.
Thirdly, this budget speeds up the production of a common policy on research and development. If European manufacturing industry is to be successful in the decades to come—and the work done by the Commission has shown that European manufacturing industry, and particularly ours, should do extremely well after 1992—we must have a policy of research and development so that we can compete in real economic terms with the Japanese and the United States and other parts of the world where economic development is happening quickly.
Fourthly, I welcome the budget because it is at least a start in tackling the enormous problems of environmental policy that we must tackle if we are not to face natural disaster, affecting the whole world, but to a great extent caused by our manufacturing activities in the manufacturing countries in the European Community. It seems that the budget begins at least to tackle all these issues and is to be welcomed for that reason.
The key to the acceptability and utility of the Community within member states is the way in which the structural funds are applied. I represent a Welsh constituency, and I and others in Wales can see both the success and the failure of the funds. Successes have been produced in south Wales, and the Wrexham area of north Wales, by the spending of European regional development fund moneys on the building of factories and the creation of new industries and infrastructure, alongside the work of

the Welsh Development Agency. The funds can be and have been applied to regenerate areas which were on their economic last legs.
In my constituency and the surrounding area there is a declining agriculture industry. It has not had the benefit of significant support from the structural funds. I accept, however, that the common agricultural policy has been the lifeblood of the industry for many years. The Government, in considering the way in which the funds are used in future, and their size, in the development of new industries must not lose sight of the decline of old industries. To put the issue in a more homely way, if there are not sheep on the hills in mid Wales, there will not be anyone living at the bottom of the hills. If that happens, our communities will decline and we shall again face depopulation and the wholesale takeover of rural communities by those who wish to move in from elsewhere. The de-Cymricisation of rural Wales could be the direct result of a reduction of CAP funds. The farmers and everyone else in mid Wales understand that the CAP has been too expensive, but the Government must ensure that the targeting of its funds is not so narrow that agricultural areas in my constituency, for example, are unable to survive.
At the Rhodes summit, the Prime Minister's criticism of the Belgian Government was justified. There was blatant political interference by the Belgian Cabinet in the due legal process of the Belgian courts. I hope that that would not happen in the United Kingdom. However, the perhaps over-strident criticism that has been directed at Mr. Martens, especially on the occasion of the European summit, has tended to distract attention from the real issues. It seems that the major decision of those who attended the summit was to defer some of the most important real decisions that have to be made for 1992, whether on border controls or harmonisation of taxes. I understand fully the Prime Minister's concern about the way in which the Ryan affair was handled, especially in Belgium, but I hope that that will not be used as an excuse for reducing the effectiveness of the Community, including the way in which its budget is applied.

Mr. David Curry: It would be a shame if the debate were to pass without someone giving two cheers for the budget, which marks a number of firsts. It is the first budget to be based upon the new financial arrangements which were agreed by the Heads of Government at the February summit, including the fourth resource. There are 3·5 billion ecu of fourth resource in the budget. Secondly, it bears the imprint of the agriculture guidelines. The preliminary budget proposed only a 7 per cent. increase in farm spending, and that will be substantially underspent in 1989, as it has been in 1988. It also reflects the increase in the structural funds following the Brussels decision.
The structural funds should be judged much more on the efficiency with which they are spending money and less on the sheer volumes that are being devoted to them. There is a tendency to judge them purely in terms of quantity. The great problem with the structural funds over the years has been the inefficiency of the spend in terms of the targeting. The relationship between the Commission and the national organisations which have been applying for funds has meant that a large amount of money has fallen


out in the process. If the new regulation tightens the procedure and ensures that that money is targeted effectively, it will do quite a considerable service.
The budget has been drawn up in the light of the institutional agreement, that rather ungainly offspring of the three institutions between the Parliament, the Commission and the Council. It is worth noting that, touch wood, until now the budget has passed without that habitual frontier warfare which characterises relations between the Parliament and the Council. I hope that the Parliament, having remained in its margin until now, will see the budget home and dry in a little over a week's time.
When we talk about the effective spend, we are talking about 1 per cent. of GNP rather than 1·15 per cent. in the preliminary budget. What characterises this budget, and what to some extent characterised the 1988 budget, is the emergence of the new cash mountain in Brussels. The savings in the 1989 budget will be realised thanks to what has happened in 1988 and the shortfall in the 1988 harvest. The harvest in 1988 will be exported in the spring of 1989.
That reduced call on own resources is due, as my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has said, largely to FEOGA savings which depend upon the world price and the American harvest, but not simply the American harvest. Many other major countries have had a poor harvest, including the Soviet Union. We must all regard Mr. Gorbachev's plans to reform Soviet agriculture with the greatest alarm. The day he succeeds in producing two good crops in succession, we are all down the drain in terms of financing agriculture.
The reduced call on own resources is also due to the boost in receipts which has transferred unspent appropriations. It is also due to a number of cancellations in the structural funds and the increased buoyancy of the customs revenues. However, it would be unfair to ignore some of the real improvements due to the depreciation of stock, the cuts in farm prices consequent to the operation of stabilisers and to a series of zero-price increases in farm prices. It is also due to the disposal of stocks, although no one would deny that that has been achieved at immensely heavy costs to the taxpayer.
However, much of the saving is fortuitous and it would be equally wrong to overlook the fortuitousness of what has happened. The FEOGA figure has been reduced by about 1·37 billion ecu. Had we been talking in July, we might have been considering a saving of some 2·5 billion to 3 billion ecu. That was because of the dollar factor. At its peak, the dollar was trading at about 0·9 ecu and now, after only a few weeks of decline, it is trading at 0·83 ecu. Almost all those factors are outside the control of the European Community. Farm spending in terms of the amount that it costs the taxpayer is very largely outside the control of the Finance Ministers or even the Heads of State of the Community.
The budgetary discipline rules insist that the Commission must take the average ecu dollar rate over the first three months of the preceding year. That dollar rate, which is a notional rate for the 1989 budget, was 0·81 ecu to the dollar. In other words, we are now within a fraction of getting back to the notional rate. That shows the extent to which we are at the mercy of exchange rate fluctuations that are not directly under our control. That saving of 1·37 billion ecu, which at one stage looked to be remarkably over-modest, may now be too modest only to the tune of 150 million or 200 million ecu.
Therefore, it is right that we should bring great caution to bear on the budget. It is particularly important that we do not allow to happen what happened in 1984 and blow the agricultural savings in farm price increases. It is important that the farm price review, which the new Commissioner for Agriculture will bring forward early next year, should continue the policy of rigorousness in relation to the general level of farm price increases. We must not forget that new pressures are around the corner because the United States has increased its plantings substantially this year in response to its own drought, and in a couple of years there will be a substantially increased American grain harvest on the world market.
As my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General said, one particularly positive feature of the budget is the four-year stock depreciation programme of 1·4 billion ecu a year agreed by Heads of Government. By the end of 1989 that will have seen the total depreciation of existing stocks. Therefore, looming on the horizon is a saving in the two subsequent years of that money which has been provided already. The practice of depreciation on entry is crucial for getting some honesty and sanity into the budget.
There has been a very real increase in structural funds because it reflects the decisions taken in Brussels. The problem remains that we are looking at an underspend in the regional fund of between 150 million and 400 million ecu and an underspend of 320 million ecu in the social fund. That is because of cutting the funds in a linear way if they are oversubscribed. Therefore, those who ask for the funds tend to ask for too much in order not to be cut back and are then unable to spend the money that is allocated to them. That is the sort of technical problem that lies in the interface between the Commission and the national institutions which are managing these issues. The new funds should assist in that.
The budget deserves a careful welcome, and should be the first of what I hope will be a new breed of much more rigorously managed budgets. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) described the debate as a completely wasted occasion, which would have no influence on anybody. He then described the European Parliament as a completely wasted institution. If this House is useless in so far as it is debating the Community budget and if the European Parliament is useless in so far as it is debating the European Community budget, who is accountable on behalf of the people for whom the decisions are taken? The denigration of both institutions will not get my hon. Friend very far, and he would be better advised to concentrate his energies on devising how the two institutions can share the burden of accountability so that, in the name of the electorate that we both claim to represent, we can be seen to be doing our job.

Sir Richard Body: My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) is being a little less than fair. We have had debate after debate, year after year, on these budgets. I have attended most of them, and we have made a number of constructive suggestions. We have made various criticisms. some of them substantial and some of them more trivial, but important contributions have been made from both sides of the House about the budgets of the past. Looking back, one must recall that they have had very little effect. I would


say that they have had virtually no effect, so the criticism made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) is right.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) was the only hon. Member to refer to that part of the budget which deals with environmental matters. That is a fresh page to turn, but he went a little too far in suggesting that it would enable us to deal with all the environmental issues in Europe. In my judgment, what is wrong with the European Community is that it is too small, and so long as it is constituted in its present form it will remain too small to deal with any of the major environmental issues which will afflict the continent of Europe in the 1990s. That is why some of us who are critical of the constitution of the European Community wish for something far wider and looser which will enable all countries in Europe to take part in decisions in which their interests are affected.
One example that affects my constituents very considerably is the North sea. The European Community discussed cleaning up the North sea, but it is powerless to do so because only half the countries causing the pollution or affected by it are members of the Community. Until we have an organisation that will embrace all the countries which border the North sea or contribute to the pollution of the North sea we shall not be able to cope with that problem.

Mr. Holland: I have one minor point. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) was not the only Member to refer to the environment. The hon. Gentleman will agree that there is already an institution which concerns the whole of Europe—the Regional Economic Commission for Europe. Even if he does not think that that institution is ideal for addressing environmental issues, it includes all the eastern and western European countries. Should not such an institution play a role in environmental issues?

Sir Richard Body: The hon. Gentleman knows my views. We have stood shoulder to shoulder on a previous occasion on this subject. The Council of Europe can do much, but the European Community as at present constituted sadly cannot.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General on the way in which he has grasped the complexities of the budget, but I am less sanguine than he about agricultural expenditure. When we speak of surpluses and their disposal, we think mainly of grain, dairy products and sometimes sugar, but in future the largest surpluses may be from southern Europe—olives, citrus fruit, tobacco, paddy rice and wine. An attempt may have been made to curb those surpluses, but anyone who has visited those parts and spoken to farmers who are poised to expand production considerably can have no faith in a policing system for arrangements to curb production. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider this problem carefully and to comment on it when he replies.
How can we curb production in southern Europe, which does not have marketing boards or producer co-operatives as well organised as those in northern Europe? It will be almost impossible to monitor the

production of commodities in southern Europe. Producers are acquiring the technical skills to expand production and I see no prospect of curbing agricultural expenditure there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East referred to the little item of expenditure on the European Movement. I have heard my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General say that he is opposed to federalism. So am I, but often one receives invitations to speak at universities, chambers of commerce and elsewhere about federal Europe. On every occasion when I have done so, my opponent in the debate has been paid by the European Movement. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) has opposed me on some occasions, but obviously he was not paid by the European Movement. However, it is a small point of principle. The sort of Europe about which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke in Bruges is not being promoted by the European Movement at present. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister say how this little item of expenditure crept into the budget? Why did we allow it to be slipped in? Surely it cannot be the Government's view that we should progress towards a federal Europe. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will ensure that such expenditure is not repeated in the next budget.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: The motion, in the form of a "take note", is a departure from recent motions taking note and expressing an opinion, and that is appropriate. As hon. Members have said, elaboration of the budget has taken place within a disciplined framework. That is welcomed by the member states, including this country. It has taken place also in a much calmer atmosphere—perhaps the one produces the other. In recent years, the budget was the product of highly charged and extremely emotional interchanges between representatives of member states and institutions, especially the European Parliament. That is not so in this case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) gave an expert analysis of the European budget. We remember his work in the European Parliament as budget rapporteur at least once and as an important agricultural spokesman for the European Democratic Group. He acquired a knowledge of his subject that is second to none, and I agree with all his points.
An increasingly fascinating subject is the accumulation of the financial surplus in the Community, emanating mainly from agriculture. Between now and 1992 is a short period in which to go through this painful, but welcome, process. I have some sympathy for my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) because, when this is achieved, he will not have so much to grumble about. I am sure, however, that with his characteristic ingenuity and creativity he will find a raft of new points to which to object. We could do the same with the United Kingdom domestic Budget. We could look at subheadings and sub-sub-headings and find nitpicking examples of mysterious territories on which the national Government propose to expend money. We could say, "What a terrible thing—we do not approve of that."

Mr. Wilson: This is just a minor point. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that the Government are spending £1 million on propaganda to promote the poll


tax is at least as offensive as the European Movement spending a few bob on promoting voting in European elections?

Mr. Dykes: It is tempting to go down that path, but I shall not. A classic technique in debates if one wants to indulge in nitpicking is to produce a few funny examples like that. People who want to think in that limited way say, "Yes, isn't that awful and ghastly?" To do that is to go away from the main points.
Because of the acceptance of the control mechanisms suggested and exerted by central Government and others and in recent years the change in emphasis on budgetary matters, there is a much better atmosphere, although the functioning if the new constitutional arrangements and the Single European Act is not involved in these measures. The European Parliament always had an enhanced power over the elaboration of the various stages of the budget and particular responsibilities for non-compulsory expenditure. The two come together in a constitutional political nexus and give the European Parliament a much stronger role. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General would be the first to admit that the European Parliament has played a constructive role. That is particularly true of members of the United Kingdom delegation, including some members of the Labour delegation.
I object to the excessive use by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East of dismissive adjectives such as "useless", "wasteful", "extravagant", and so on. He is a dignified politician, but he demeans his dignity by using overdramatised words to describe a complicated process of co-operation—

Mr. Wilson: Steady.

Mr. Dykes: Perhaps I was going too far, but I think that hon. Members know what I mean. The process of working out the European Community budget is complicated. The amount is small compared with European GDP and European central Government public expenditure. Some of the money is included in local authority budgets and some is not—it depends on the country. I think that I am right in my understanding of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East. I agree that short debates are insufficient, especially on the budget. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation, and I have had many discussions on this matter. We could return to the old idea of European Supply days, with full days of European debate.
The President of the Commission, Mr. Delors, despite some controversial remarks which he apparently made recently and which were taken out of context, said that the West German Parliament and the British House of Commons and House of Lords carry out considerable scrutiny of the budget. Very few other member states do so, apart from an annual debate such as takes place in the National Assembly in Paris.
I approach the matter from a different vantage point from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, and other hon. Members who are not so enthusiastic about our membership of the Community; sadly there is still a small but, I hope, diminishing number of them. Both they and I are right, for different reasons, in wanting to see a more substantial debate. There should be a full day's debate on the European Community budget. My hon.

Friend the Member for Southend, East will no doubt part company with me when I say that 1 should like to see that coupled with our developing personal, collective and individual relationships with Members of the European Parliament of all parties, both through party committees and House of Commons arrangements.
Then there should be the normative, logical and regular liaison with Members of the European Parliament on that subject which undergoes its most elaborate process in the European Parliament and has the greatest amount of time devoted to it there. I cannot think of any other subject which is debated at such length. The process is divided into three stages and is preceded by a much more elaborate stage in the appropriate committee. If we could do that, we would be equipped to interrogate the Executive in a much more effective way about the European budget. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East would probably reject that idea because he does not want the European Parliament to have that role with its associated liaison, access and facilities. When, for example, will we have fax machines for Members of Parliament as well as for visiting Members of the European Parliament? What a reckless expenditure it would be to spend all that money on a fax machine.

Mr. Holland: The hon. Gentleman has touched on a sensitive issue. A number of Opposition Members find it amazing, when we are members of the European Community, that we can telephone anywhere in this country at public expense for the public purpose but we cannot telephone the European Community or send any material there. We have to pay our own postage to the European Community. That is a substantive matter. As an Opposition opposing a Government with massive resources, we are not easily able—except at our own expense—to ring our counterparts in other national Parliaments or in the European Assembly to discuss their views on the budget. The Government should face the fact that that should be funded and that Members should have those facilities.

Mr. Dykes: Is the hon. Gentleman really willing to give up the masochistic and agonising torture of going through the switchboard and asking Doris to get a number in Brussels? She asks, "Where's Brussels? Is this a private call or is it official? Can I have that in writing please?" It is perhaps rather rash of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that we should give up those time-honoured customs.
I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. Some people in the Labour party are beginning to talk about proportional representation, and more enthusiastically about Europe. That is an interesting new development. The all-party Europe group, which was formed in July, includes two Labour Front-Bench spokesmen and had a third until her portfolio responsibility was recently removed by the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock).
Many hon. Members will agree with what I have said. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) and I can phone Edinburgh easily, but although that experience is pleasurable I regret that I rarely need to phone Edinburgh or Glasgow in the course of my political duties. I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) will forgive me for saying that, although as he also speaks on European affairs he, too, will need to phone Brussels. Unlike some members of the British Civil Service, officials


in Brussels, including British officials, are much more approachable and amenable and are often delighted to receive calls from politicians of all the member states, in whatever language it may be. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General will respond to that point by saying that he will ensure that either European or national funds will be provided for that purpose, liaising with the House of Commons Commission. That would be a wonderful achievement.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General for having steered us between the Scylla and Charybdis of this budget process. We are now in calmer seas. There is now support for the Government's policy of controlling those matters more effectively, but I should like to see Parliament have a greater say in that control.

Mr. John Redwood: I welcome the slightly enlarged abatement that has been negotiated and also the signs that, in the current year, the budget is below its quite generous ceiling.
I want to raise the question of the opportunity that many hon. Members feel now exists once again to tackle the problem of agriculture. All hon. Members who have spoken have agreed that the most acute problem is agricultural expenditure. While we all welcome the ceiling and the stabilisers, there are reasons—because of Mediterranean products and the possible harvests in two or three years for northern products—why the Government should urge other member nations to return to the drawing board on some aspects of the farm support system.
We have a system that is expensive both to the taxpayer and to the consumer, to say nothing of its impact on Third world countries. The way to cut through that is well known. It is to rediscover the old mechanism of market prices, which has a great impact on balancing supply and demand and which is rightly the centrepiece of industrial strategy in the Community, where many good decisions are taken to strengthen competition and to allow market forces, free of play, to open markets to greater competition between companies and countries both within and outside the Community. If only some of those fine words from the treaty of Rome could be built into the agricultural system in Europe, it would save money and leave more resources in the budget for other purposes.
The aim to reduce the proportion of spending on agriculture within the budget total is worthy, but I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to try to secure that not so much by increasing other expenditure but by reducing the agricultural expenditure which, it is generally agreed, is wasteful. It would be unfortunate if, through the Community, we rediscovered, supported or allowed to develop some of the spending programmes that we have, with some pain but with much success, chipped away with good results. I think, for example, of certain capital grants to industry within the industrial and regional policies that this country used to follow. There is a notable coincidence between the beginnings of a recovery in some parts of the urban centres and industrial heartlands of the north and west and the termination of capital grants in a bold reappraisal of regional policy. We do not want that policy to be redeveloped through the European Community. It

would cost jobs and taxpayers' cash and would cause disruption within the evolving economies of the European Community, rather than helping in their growth and development.
We must beware that, under many of the headings of expenditure in the Community budget, there are items where there are also domestic programmes. I do not want to judge what would be the right body, in any given case, to pursue those programmes. There may well be cases where the programmes can be most sensibly pursued at the European level. I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that, where we have agreed to a European programme in a particular area, we make corresponding savings or some reappraisal in the domestic programme because we may otherwise find not only duplication but a wasteful overlap of expenditure. That would do no one any good.
I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to take the opportunity afforded by the United States overtures on farm subsidies to determine whether the principles of competition and open markets, which we welcome in Europe, can be extended to the very expensive agricultural sector and whether Europe can make a good response to the American offer of multilateral disarmament in agricultural subsidies.

Mr. Christopher Gill: I do not share hon. Members' enthusiasm about structural funds. As they exist at the moment, there is simply not enough cash in any of the funds to make sure that the treatment of projects that are applied for can be dealt with in an even-handed manner. There will inevitably be winners and losers. Some may say that that is fair enough. It is acceptable if one is a winner, but it is totally unacceptable if one is a loser.
My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) referred to FEOGA. Nowhere is my argument better demonstrated than in the case of FEOGA funds. A project in my hon. Friend's constituency, which might stand absolutely four-square with a project in my constituency, might be lucky enough to attract funds and the project in my constituency might not. That is palpably unfair. It cuts across what we believe to be fair competition in the market in which we so earnestly believe. Clearly, if one company is advantaged to the extent of FEOGA funds and its competitor is not, that company is in an unfairly disadvantageous position.
There is a smokescreen in terms of the goal and the prizes that are to be won from the market if we concentrate on removing the barriers—whether they be real, imagined, financial, technical or practical—to the free movement of goods and services throughout the Community. That must be our goal. To a greater or lesser extent, the structural funds are a smokescreen and a distraction from the achievement of that most important objective, which, in the long run, is the only one that can deliver benefits and dividends to this country and the other 11 nations.

Mr. Brooke: With the leave of the House, may I say that I agree with those hon. Members who spoke warmly about the tone of the debate. I am conscious that I have been asked many questions, and I shall do my best to respond to them in the limited time left in the debate.
At present, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is attending the mid-term


review of the Uruguay round of the GATT negotiations in Montreal. He will be pursuing the United Kingdom Government's aim of an immediate freeze in support for agriculture, combined with a long-term reduction in agricultural subsidies to free resources for more productive use in the rest of the economy. As I said earlier, at the July Budget Council, the United Kingdom pressed hard for the Community to recognise the scope for savings in agricultural spending at the earliest possible opportunity.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) asked me several questions about individual budget lines and specific amendments made by the Parliament. I will write to him in detail about the position that the November Budget Council adopted on those points.
The same applies to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), who asked me about the celebration of the French revolution. I recall the quotation from Burke, which states:
It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the Queen of France … the age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists, and calculators, has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished for ever.
The sophisters and economists appear to have got hold of the celebration of the French revolution.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall asked me about the balance between agriculture and the rest. A shift in the balance of the budget is taking place. Even if expenditure on agricultural market support grows to the full extent allowed by the guideline, the annual rate of increase in real terms would be only about 2 per cent. a year between 1988 and 1992. However, for the budget as a whole, the figure implied by the financial perspective is 4 per cent. What the Prime Minister said about structural funds and Marshall aid was that, in real terms, the value of structural funds in the three years up to 1993 will exceed the value of the Marshall plan in the three years for which it ran.

Mr. Holland: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brooke: I shall not give way, given the limited amount of time.

Mr. Holland: We have conventions in the House and I agreed not to conclude for the Opposition. What the Paymaster General said is not the case. It can be true only in nominal terms. The impression given is wholly misleading. Marshall aid was a major programme whereas the structural funds are a minor programme.

Mr. Brooke: I stand by what I said and we can both read it again in the morning.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East asked a series of questions. The revenue figures in the budget documents, including the PDB, the draft budget and the amending letter, show the yield from customs duties in detail, but again perhaps we may engage in correspondence. He said that nothing was being done about stocks, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said, stocks have been reduced substantially in certain areas. Community stocks of butter fell by 85 per

cent. between January 1987 and November 1988 and of skimmed milk powder by 99 per cent. over the same period.
My hon. Friend asked for our estimate of the United Kingdom's net payments to the Community institutions in 1989. He and I know from frequent cross-examination of the difficulty of comparing a calendar year for the Community with a fiscal year in which we report our public expenditure. He knows our forecast for public expenditure of £1,970 million in 1989–90 and £1,950 million in 1990–91, and I look forward to his comparison. I stress that the proportion of GDP represented by our net contribution is lower than it was in the late 1970s.
My hon. Friend intervened in my speech to make a point about advances. To have peace between us, advances are a legitimate means of dealing with cash flow problems. They do not facilitate higher spending. On the other hand, delayed payments require a proposal from the Commission. The present drift of the budget is away from delayed payments. Thus we have the substantial provision for stock depreciation.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) made an admirable speech, in part of which he referred to research and development. I hope that he will acknowledge as a result of the British Government's efforts that the difference between good and bad research has emerged. I am making a similar point on his speech to that which my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon made about the effectiveness and efficiency in the structural funds.
In response to my hon. Friends the Members for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) and for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), I recognise the Government's responsibility to watch new areas of production carefully. I will investigate the European Movement's alleged support of federalism, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston would always wish to have a worthy opponent when he fought the opposite cause in order to improve his argument.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) raised the subject of the European Parliament's role. It has been valuable for agriculture and I shall return to the telephone matter, although without commitment. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham added considerably to the tone of the debate on agriculture and my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) joined in with my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon on the subject of the use of the funds.
Finally, I hope that if some of the things which we think might come to pass do come to pass my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East will have the generosity in due course to acknowledge that they have.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7271/88 and 7758/88 on the preliminary Draft Budget for 1989, 7908/88 on the Draft Budget for 1989, 8996/88 on Letter of Amendment No. 1 to the preliminary Draft Budget for 1989 and 9286/88 on the European Parliament's proposed Amendments and modifications to the Draft Budget for 1989.

Young Persons (Benefits)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

Mr. Brian Wilson: We move in one step from the politics of gross profligacy to the politics of gross parsimony.
I am grateful for the opportunity of this Adjournment debate to draw specific attention to what I regard as an act of wickedness perpetrated by this Government. I use those words advisedly to describe the cynical decision to cut off all legal sources of income from thousands of vulnerable youngsters in the full knowledge that many of them would be left without money, homes or hopes.
Charitable organisations and social services departments around the country are now anxiously awaiting the inevitable consequences of last year's social security legislation affecting the under-18s.
The director of social work for the National Children's Home has written to express his grave concern about the implications for young people with no family support to fall back on when this Government deprive them of all income despite being unable to offer them jobs or youth training scheme places.
The Central London Society Security Advisers Forum concludes from the early workings of the legislation:
If you are young and anything better than really quite ill you can be left to sleep out.
That was based on the guidance offered by the Minister for Social Security who is to reply to the debate.
The social work chairman of Strathclyde region, the Rev. David Lane, has pointed out in stark and compassionate terms the moral danger into which the Government are pushing thousands of young people who now have no income from legal sources. He is not, of course, talking about the majority of youngsters who have been stripped of all their income because in many, probably most cases, families will succeed in protecting the youngsters from the fates to which I have alluded and to which that highly selective creature, the Tory conscience, is so wretchedly indifferent. However, when we are legislating about the very means of survival for 16 and 17-year-olds, is there not a binding moral obligation to consider the large number of exceptions, rather than hide behind the generality that most of them, one way or another, will manage to put hand to mouth?
This national scandal is based on a lie of Goebellian proportions from the Government. Since I cannot attribute an act of studied mendacity to individuals in this House or even to Lord Young of Graffham, I shall have to quote instead from the press release made parallel to statements in this House which was issued by the Department of Employment on 27 October 1987, confirming the effect of the Employment Act 1988. That press release stated without equivocation:
This Bill, together with the social security changes, will give effect to our manifesto commitments to 16 and 17-year-olds. Every unemployed school leaver in this age group is guaranteed a place on the youth training scheme. No one who is able to take up a place on the YTS needs to live on benefit.
We knew, and said then, that that was a lie. We know now that it is a lie. In many parts of the country the guarantee of a YTS place has not been fulfilled, yet on the

basis of that fraudulent prospectus and without regard to the consequences on individual young lives, the Government proceeded to take away all means of support.
Opposition Members disagree philosophically with the conscription of younsters on to youth training schemes of variable quality on pain of losing all benefits. However, in constituencies such as mine, that is not the issue. The issue is that the Government guaranteed YTS places but failed to deliver them and yet have proceeded to withdraw all benefit. I reckon that throughout the country at least 20,000 youngsters have no legal income tonight. The figure may be much higher and it will certainly be much higher after the next wave of school leavers who will not even qualify for the eight weeks' bridging allowance in the absence of jobs or YTS places, but who will straight away face having no income.
The case was put more eloquently by a young constituent who wrote to me, saying:
How do young people survive after the bridging allowance? Has Mrs. Thatcher abdicated all responsibility for the younger generation? Before this legislation I received £19·20 per week. On bridging this has been cut to £15. After bridging allowance I will receive nothing. What hope is there for people like myself—no work, no money! I did not see this in the Conservative manifesto.
Perhaps the Minister will answer some of that young woman's questions. What price does he place on the value of a young life? I fear that it is not very high. I recently asked two questions of the Secretary of State for Social Security. I asked him to state how many YTS vacancies exist in each region of the country, which he did. I asked him to state also the number of people looking for YTS places in each region of the country—the other necessary half of the equation—which he refused to do, on the ground that the information could not be obtained "except at disproportionate cost".
Today, I received answers to parallel questions, not about the whole of the United Kingdom—I understand that it is beyond the means of the public purse to supply the information on a nationwide basis—but about the Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway area. Once again, the answer about the number of vacancies was given and, once again, an answer about the number of applicants was refused on the grounds of disproportionate cost. Behind such deceits Ministers shelter, but the victims are the young people of that area and of the country.
Tonight we shall hear about youngsters who are left bereft of income, but who can appeal on grounds of severe hardship. We know from our own areas, however, how harshly the criteria are being applied, presumably on the Minister's instructions. I have to hand a letter from the Scottish Education Department to principal careers officers in which it is made clear that they have no say in assessing severe hardship in individual cases. That is the unique function of a small central unit within the DHSS working on ministerial instructions. There is nothing to suggest that it is a liberal regime or that it will be so.
The only urgent answer is to restore income support to youngsters who do not have jobs or YTS places, at least until some semi-humane scheme, based on a far less broad-brush approach and which takes account of the human tragedy that is unfolding throughout the country among youngsters of whom we know little and about whom the Minister cares little, is put in place. If the Minister cannot do that in the name of humanity, I hope, at least, that he will spare us any festive cant about Christian society or suffering little children. To treat 16


and 17-year-olds in this way reveals the darkest side of a society that cares very little for young life or human dignity.

Mr. Dave Nellist: I wish to associate myself with the criticisms that my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) has just made. I am conscious of the time restrictions in half-hour Adjournment debates and I shall restrict myself to asking the Minister to investigate a single case, which is symptomatic of many others.
Will the Minister assure me that his Department will investigate the case of 17-year-old Terry Flowers of Freeman street in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes)? Last Friday, Terry was interviewed on the television programme "Central Weekend". Terry is 17 and his birthday is at Christmas. Nobody will have him on YTS for a month when they can have a 16-year-old for a full two years. He has had no money from the DHSS for one month. His mam is on income support and he has no prospect of any money before Christmas as a result of the Social Security Act 1988.
The only advice that has been given to him by the local office of the DHSS is that he should "Try the Salvation Army." Is that the face of caring capitalism that the Minister discussed with me when we sat on opposite sides of the fence on the Committee that considered the clauses and schedules that became part of the Social Security Act 1988? What can the Minister say tonight to the Terrys of this country about the future?

Mr. Bill Michie: This is an important debate even though it is taking place late at night. I want to raise one issue that supplements what my hon. Friends the Members for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) have said. It relates to young people who have come out of care and who cannot rely on families once they reach the age of 17 or 18. Once those young people come out of the care of local authorities, which are themselves subject to financial constraint, they find themselves in difficulty.
The one example that I shall quote, also by coincidence, relates to a 17-year-old boy. He had been in care for three years after a family breakdown and he went into voluntary care. In July 1988 he left care and was working on a YTS placement. He received £28·50 from that scheme and out of that he had to pay £10·74 in rent and rates. That left him with £17·76 per week, out of which he had to pay for gas, electricity, food, household needs, clothing, fares to work, and so on.
In the second year, that youngster's pay increased to about £35, but the new housing benefit rules meant that he had to pay about £16 in rent and rates, leaving him £19 a week to pay for gas, electricity, clothes and fares. The position is much worse than it was before April 1988, when in the first year he would have been £7·74 better off and in the second year £11 better off.
I have intervened in the debate because I believe that those young people have had enough trauma in life. They do not have a loving family and have had to be brought up by the local authority, which does its best. At the age of 18

they are forced into circumstances in which they could not afford to take council accommodation even if it were offered to them.

Mr. Jim Sillars: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister to intervene?

Mr. Wilson: It is all right with me.

Mr. Sillars: The Minister is nodding, so I assume that he does not mind.
I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). It is a pity that the Minister for Social Security must answer for a policy that is widely regarded in the west of Scotland as malicious, wicked and totally evil. I hope that the Minister will not argue that there are guaranteed places for young people on YTS and that my hon. Friend's points are invalid. There is a big difference between the statistical promise of a place on YTS and the places available for young people.
The social work department of Strathclyde regional council, which is not given to extremist statements or statements without validity, has said during the past month that thousands of people in the west of Scotland —many of them in Glasgow—cannot find places on YTS and are, therefore, under this Government's policies, penniless. The social work department points out that many of those young people come from the most vulnerable sections of our society which for the past 10 to 12 years have been under enormous pressure from rising unemployment and family breakdown. How is it possible to justify making young people penniless? That is the effect of the Government's policy.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I have taken note of the points made by the hon. Members for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars), for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) and for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). What I cannot accept for one moment is that the underlying thrust of the policy concerning the cases that have been mentioned this evening is wicked or unreasonable—.

Mr. Wilson: It is.

Mr. Scott: I hope that hon. Gentlemen will listen with some care to what I have to say. They know as well as I do that all hon. Members have a real concern for people of that age group who may be vulnerable—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North doubts that. I shall have a word to say later in the debate about some of the allegations that he has made, not surprisingly in the Morning Star, which is the most appropriate place for him to make such allegations.

Mr. Wilson: Like anyone else who wishes to raise an issue, I sent out a press release through the Press Association. Who uses it or does not use it is not within my control.

Mr. Scott: I am not surprised that the Morning Star was the only newspaper to pick up the point.


The point that we are trying to make in the new provisions is that, at the age of 16 or 17, young people are at the stage of transition from childhood to the young adult world. We must all be careful about the provision that we make for them. I hope that I can show the limited number of hon. Members in the House that the Government have been careful in that regard. I am convinced that it would be healthy neither for society nor for those young people if they could move straight from education into dependence upon state benefits as a normal stage in their transfer to adult life. I can think of nothing more debilitating for the mass of youngsters leaving education and entering the adult world than to have automatically to depend on state benefits. That is why from September we implemented the manifesto commitment that those under 18 who choose to remain unemployed should not be eligible for benefit. I shall later defend that assertion. However, at the same time, through our regulations I think that we have made sure that vulnerable young people will still be protected. We linked these measures with the guarantee of an offer of a place on the youth training scheme for every school leaver under 18 who applies for one and who is not in work or full time education.
I say not just in terms of my ministerial responsibility but as the Member of Parliament for Chelsea in central London and representing Earl's Court that I can think of no greater danger than for young people to be attracted to leave home and have the opportunity to live on state benefits and come into some sort of life in inner London or any of our other big cities and be exposed to the dangers, moral and otherwise, that can confront them. We are determined to ensure that that is not an easy option open to young people.

Mr. Wilson: rose—

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman has had the chance of initiating an Adjournment debate. I have to finish shortly and I hope that he will allow me to continue my argument.
I know that some Opposition Members have doubts about the training opportunities that we are offering to young people. They have doubts about the extent and quality of the training that will be available for young people. I maintain with certainty that the youth training scheme is a real and high quality opportunity for those who leave school without a job to make a sound start in their adult lives. Modern skills and qualifications will be essential to enable young people to get the jobs that Britain needs if it is to compete internationally in future.

Mr. Bill Michie: rose—

Mr. Scott: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would listen for a moment.
Seventy-four per cent. of young people who leave the YTS go into jobs, further education or other opportunities for training. Eighty per cent. of people who have completed YTS schemes say that they have benefited from them. Of course, once young people are on the youth training scheme, income support is available to top up the training allowance, if appropriate. That is paid if, for example, the young person has a board and lodging charge to meet.
Those are the arguments about why it is right for the young people themselves to have an opportunity to take part in the youth training scheme. This country is moving steadily into a climate in which we will experience a shortage of skills and manpower. The best thing that we can do for the economy as a whole and for our young people is to make sure that they are trained and have opportunities to participate in what will be an increasingly tight employment market in the next five to 10 years. I have no hesitation in commending this as being important to young people and to our economic development.
I appreciate that some young people will still require the protection of benefit. Many of them, through no fault of their own, find themselves in unfortunate circumstances. The regulations provide for such people so that benefits will still be available for them between the ages of 16 and 18. Lone parents looking after children, the severely disabled, the long-term sick and girls within 11 weeks of giving birth to a child will not be affected by the new arrangements. Many thousands of young people will come within those groups.
For those school leavers who can go on to YTS and who are living at home, child benefit is now available until the end of the year, by which time the offer of a YTS place will have been made. For those who can go on to YTS but who cannot live at home—either because they have no home or because they would be at risk of physical or sexual abuse if they did—income support is available for the same period. Again the offer of a YTS place is guaranteed. Therefore, we have gone to not inconsiderable lengths to protect young people who are most in need. [Interruption.] I can hear rumbles on the Opposition Benches, and no doubt hon. Members are saying that this is not enough. My answer to that is that it is not possible to regulate for every particular circumstance in which it would be unreasonable to refuse benefit to somebody under 18. That is why we expressly took the power to enable income support still to be paid to somebody under 18 who would otherwise suffer severe hardship, and this is a power that we have used.
In the 12 weeks since the new provisions took effect, 1,688 applications under the severe hardship provision have been received. In 1,139 cases, a direction resulted and in 549 a direction was refused. Each case has been considered on its merits. Examples of the factors that are taken into account include the young persons' health and vulnerability—for example, the risk of being led into crime, the risk of eviction and subsequent homelessness as a result of inability to meet accommodation costs, the availability of any income which would normally fall to be disregarded, the availability of any savings, the prospect of a speedy entry into YTS, the prospects of getting casual work, the young person's financial commitments and prospects for postponing payment, and whether the young person has any friends or relatives who could help. We gave a commitment to give decisions on these cases of severe hardship within 24 hours, and I am glad to say that that commitment has been met.
A point has been made about the places available on YTS. It has been suggested in some parts of the media that the restrictions on the availability of benefits for young people have been a way for the Government to save money, but the money that we have been spending on the expansion of the YTS has been far in excess of any savings that we could have had on the income support scheme. The


hon. Member for Coventry, South-East will remember the debates that we had in Committee about this, and the practice has borne out the arguments that I made then.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North talked about 20,000 young people across the country who have not been offered places. There are 120,000 vacancies available in the YTS scheme today. In Scotland, there are 13,000 places, in Strathclyde, 5,000 and in Cunninghame 267 places.

Mr. Wilson: How many applicants are there?

Mr. Scott: There are 20,000. The hon. Gentleman claimed in the Morning Star this morning that there is a shortage of 20,000 places, so he must believe that there are that many applicants. There are 120,000 places—six times as many places as he claimed were unfilled—available now to young people if they come forward and claim them. These are not young people left without a YTS place. We know that, of these people, many made no effort to seek a place during the eight weeks that they received a bridging payment. That was a payment specifically designed to bridge them through to the point at which they could take a YTS place.
Some of those who are said not to have achieved a place may by now have got a job. Other YTS places that were waiting for them may have been taken up. Some will have returned to full-time education. The careers service has not reported that it has been inundated with young people seeking places once their bridging allowance has run out. The places are there for them if they want them, and the figures that I have given to the House make that clear beyond peradventure. It will be clear in due course whether what I am saying is true or whether what hon. Gentlemen have said is true, but there is now an excess of places available over and above the number of young people who say that they have not been able to get such a place.

Mr. Wilson: If what the Minister says is right, will he explain why the cost is disproportionate to identify the number of applicants in each area? Whatever the global number, there are many areas in which there is a shortfall of places. The information that the Minister gave us earlier about the quality of youth training schemes is not germane to the debate. We are talking about those who have not been offered YTS places or jobs. They have had their supply of benefit cut off. They have not "enjoyed" any of the intermediate steps that the Minister has described. They have lived in poverty, or at least hardship, unless someone has taken up their cases. If the Minister believes that these cases do not exist in large numbers, he lives in a different world from the rest of us.

Mr. Scott: My departmental colleagues and I watch these matters carefully. If hon. Members can present clear and specific examples of young people in certain regions who are willing to accept YTS places, who have used the time while they are in receipt of bridging allowance to seek such places, who have not refused to accept a moderate journey from their locality to take up their places, and who still cannot find YTS places, I am sure that my departmental colleagues will take serious note. I am advised by them, however, and the careers service that there is no such picture arising across the country. There are places in excess of the number of young people who claim that they have not received an offer.

Mr. Nellist: The Minister has said that it is not healthy to move directly from education to state benefit dependence. How healthy is it for people such as Terry Flowers to be without any help for eight weeks—there are hundreds like him—before his 18th birthday?

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman will know that it is unwise to raise individual examples unless he is prepared to write to me, or to my departmental colleagues, to present specific examples. If he is prepared to do that, we shall respond in detail, having investigated the specific circumstances of individuals, irrespective of whether they have received YTS offers. I shall ensure that the specific case to which he has referred is investigated. I know that he has a deep concern, as I have. I do not want to see youngsters deprived of benefit or left without benefit.
I am determined, however, that those who fall within the age group that we are discussing I think that I carry many with me on this issue—do not have the easy option of moving from education into dependence on state benefit when training opportunities are available to them. I am sure that those opportunities will be of considerable benefit to them, to society and to the country as a whole.
All that young people have lost as a result of the implementation of the new arrangements is the option of doing nothing at the public's expense. We have sought to encourage them to take up worthwhile options in employment, education or training. If they take them up, they will be provided with a sound foundation for their adult life. It is easy to raise the individual hard case—we examine such instances with care, and the action that we have taken under the exceptional hardship provisions demonstrates how seriously we have done so—but I believe that on principle the Government are on sound ground. I make no apologies for the steps that we have taken.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to One o'clock.